DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bubbleheads, etc. » Adapting Women to Subs

Adapting Women to Subs

female-driving-sub

The issue whether to include women in U.S. Navy nuclear sub crews has come up at every annual Naval Submarine League Open Symposium since I first began attend­ing these great con­fer­ences in 1998. This year’s, on October 28 and 29 at the Hilton McLean Tysons Corner, VA, was no excep­tion — except for one thing. Presentations by Commander, U.S. Navy Submarine Force (COMNAVSUBFOR) Vice Admiral John Donnelly, and by Commander, U.S. Navy Submarine Force, Pacific (COMSUBPAC) Force Master Chief David Lynch, made it clear that America’s sub crews are indeed grad­u­ally going co-​​ed, start­ing soon.

Implicitly, every­one up and down the dis­ci­plined naval hier­ar­chy has already been tasked with facil­i­tat­ing the initiative’s suc­cess. Director, U.S. Naval Reactors (DNR) Admiral Kirkland Donald noted that not enough male Naval Academy grad­u­ates are vol­un­teer­ing for the Sub Force to meet the demand there for new junior offi­cers. It is well known that some top-​​notch female Midshipmen have long wanted to go into subs. An open poll on Military​.com about whether women should be able to serve on subs shows 78% of respon­dents say “No.” But while naysayer com­ments and dire pre­dic­tions are numer­ous, I’ve not seen any objec­tion to co-​​ed crews that hasn’t been voiced for more than a decade already.

The Powers-​​that-​​Be now demand that prag­matic solu­tions be devised and imple­mented for dif­fi­cult morale/​retention and logis­ti­cal prob­lems related to every­thing from the severe lack of men­tal and phys­i­cal pri­vacy on long sub­merged patrols, to harass­ment and frat­er­niza­tion, to dif­fer­ing hygiene and med­ical require­ments and phys­i­cal abil­i­ties between the sexes, to the vex­ing need to mit­i­gate toxic occu­pa­tional expo­sures for women who are preg­nant while at the same time main­tain­ing vital mis­sion stealth and ade­quate watch-​​station man­ning lev­els. Drawing on analy­ses that go back to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) of the late 1990s, the Sub Force is not start­ing from scratch with these issues today. Recent submarine-​​medicine stud­ies do show that first-​​trimester preg­nan­cies are par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­a­ble to con­t­a­m­i­nants such as car­bon diox­ide that tend to build up inside nuclear subs run­ning deep for weeks at a time.

But — leav­ing aside the moral/​religious impli­ca­tions — I do need to note that com­mer­cially avail­able birth-​​control implants, some of which also sup­press men­stru­a­tion for months at a time, when com­bined with reli­able pre-​​deployment preg­nancy test­ing, might help limit the scope of this com­pli­ca­tion to man­age­able pro­por­tions.
       
At the con­clud­ing ban­quet of this year’s NSL Symposium, the guest speaker, Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Work, praised in high terms the long and effec­tive track record of adapt­abil­ity of the Submarine Force. (He ended by stat­ing that “fis­cal con­straints” might require that the con­struc­tion rate of the Virginia-​​class fast attack subs revert to one per year for a while longer, fur­ther chal­leng­ing Sub Force and sub­ma­rine indus­trial base adapt­abil­ity alike.) While UNDSECNAV Work made no spe­cific men­tion of the issue of women on subs, I infer that senior lead­er­ship stands united in expect­ing to see this same adapt­abil­ity exem­pli­fied as the Silent Service brings women onto its very exclu­sive mem­ber­ship rolls, begin­ning with a few crew assign­ments as early as 2010.

After all, the U.S. Navy’s sur­face war­ships have been co-​​ed since 1993. That change brought rough spots and ongo­ing com­pli­ca­tions, but the net effect was deemed by Navy lead­er­ship to be def­i­nitely pos­i­tive: A larger pool of tal­ent became avail­able for a Navy that now much bet­ter rep­re­sents the nation and way of life it is sworn to defend.

Even if hav­ing a co-​​ed Sub Force were a polit­i­cally moti­vated social exper­i­ment, as some objec­tors con­tend, such exper­i­ments are not nec­es­sar­ily a bad idea. While for­eign navies with co-​​ed diesel subs (such as Sweden and Australia) might not be good role mod­els due to social mores and deploy­ment pro­files dif­fer­ing from those in America, rel­e­vant lessons learned can be found close to home at NASA, whose astro­naut corps has been co-​​ed for years. Space Shuttle and International Space Station crews in orbit cope with stric­tures in many ways sim­i­lar to those pre­vail­ing deep under the sea.  Some female American astro­nauts have com­pleted six-​​month mis­sions on the ISS — which has only one toi­let.
 
In clos­ing, I note that many mil­lions of thriv­ing fam­i­lies include high school or col­lege age sib­lings of both sexes who while at home live cheek-​​by-​​jowl and have to share bath­rooms.  Fraternization is avoided, of course, by the pro­found under­stand­ing shared by all of us in nor­mal soci­ety that incest vio­lates a heinous inter­per­sonal taboo. Perhaps a cul­ture needs to be engen­dered that a U.S. Navy co-​​ed sub crew is very anal­o­gous to a close-​​knit and over­crowded fam­ily trapped indoors for the win­ter by record snow­falls. Crewpersons have to see each other as united by fig­u­ra­tive blood ties, mak­ing all be  broth­ers and sis­ters or par­ents and kids. This turns the mere thought of hanky-​​panky into an ugly place where no indi­vid­ual or pair­ing dare go.

Adjusting to co-​​ed crews, how­ever pre­cisely it’s done, has to call for a community-​​wide effort, includ­ing chap­lains, detail­ers, med­ical staff, shore sup­port per­son­nel, and spouse orga­ni­za­tions. Ongoing scrutiny seems likely by the media and by out­side “watch­dog” enti­ties.  How dif­fi­cult will it be for the elite ranks of the active duty qual­i­fied Dolphins-​​wearers them­selves, already sub­ject to tight psy­cho­log­i­cal screen­ing, to adjust to this quan­tum leap in diver­sity? Beyond the some­what tra­di­tional and mostly harm­less Sailor’s belly­ach­ing about any big change, and the pre­dictable added turnover of both some men and some women in the early stages, I think the Silent Service will likely adapt well to this inter­nal chal­lenge just as it has adapted to and helped win every mor­tally chal­leng­ing global armed con­flict dur­ing its very proud 100+ year history.

– Joe Buff

Share |

November 3rd, 2009 | Bubbleheads, etc., Uncategorized | 487620 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/11/03/adapting-women-to-subs/Adapting+Women+to+Subs2009-11-03+15%3A17%3A41christian You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

« « Data Centers Unprepared For A Cyber Attack | What Does this Handle Do? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    November 4, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    Good Evening Folks,

    I like it, dt 2.0

    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. joebuff says:
    November 5, 2009 at 5:21 am

    Agree with Byron, new look is terrific!

    Reply
  3. gsak says:
    November 5, 2009 at 6:39 am

    More boat arti­cles, Shipmate Buff. You do alright for not hav­ing fish.

    Reply
  4. gruntdoc91 says:
    November 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    the pic says it all. its fun and games for them and they may not real­ize the seri­ous nature of sub war​fare​.to thenm its all about stick­ing it to the man so they can thump their chest and say look were equal to guys etc.etc. its funny outr last deploy­ment we had women sol­diers claim­ing com­bat stress and ptsd for work­ing in a toc watch­ing a com­puter screen or guard­ing the dfac or other non com­bat fob­bit jobs. so whats going to hap­pen when theyre stuck in a sub with no sun­light for a cou­ple of months straight and nature being nature some­ones get­ting knocked up

    Reply
  5. gruntdoc91 says:
    November 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    yes my typ­ing sucks im at work­ing sneak­ing in my DT fix.

    Reply
  6. Tom Carney says:
    November 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    The arti­cle says 78% of those basi­cally in the know thought it to be a bad idea, and have so deemed it since 1988 or so. This stat points to an ever-​​changing uni­verse, not a col­lec­tion of old men who can­not be con­vinced. As a mat­ter of fact, it shows the new uni­verse learns the lessons the old one did, by expe­ri­ence.
    By the way, any­one say­ing pop­u­lat­ing the fleet with women has been or is suc­cess­ful is disin­gen­u­ous.
    And mak­ing change for any rea­son other than the mis­sion is stupid.

    Reply
  7. Al Demarest IC2(SS) says:
    November 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    The USN can­not han­dle the sex­ual harass­ment prob­lems they are faced with on shore sta­tions and larger (car­ri­ers , cruis­ers etc) ves­sels. Now we are told
    to inte­grate crews faced with close quar­ter, long time sub­merged oper­a­tions and expect it to be un– affected by this man­date . Welcome to added stress from wives of males , hus­bands of females, and suits from allegedly harassed indi­vid­u­als. Another side effect just may be an increased divorce rate lower rate of re-​​enlistment

    Reply
  8. STS3(ss) Filbey says:
    November 5, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Women on subs! Thank God I got out 20 years ago!

    Reply
  9. gsak says:
    November 5, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    As a for­mer sub­mariner, I actu­ally agree that is a bad idea to inte­grate women into the sub­ma­rine ser­vice. However, it is not impos­si­ble to imple­ment, and that fact will serve as the back­bone to my com­ments on this sub­ject in the future, regard­less of my own opinion. 

    Additionally, I’d like to see less talk from non-​​quals. If you’re won­der­ing if this applies to you.. Yes, it does.

    Reply
  10. gsak says:
    November 5, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    One more thing: 

    The course for women on the boats has been locked-​​in. Stop bitch­ing and let the girls write their own history.

    Reply
  11. Jon says:
    November 5, 2009 at 11:37 pm

    Ohhhh — you were once in the Navy…
    Then I guess the rest of us should just read and not offer comments 

    Can’t wait to see how this guy deals with the Ugg boots robot.

    Reply
  12. gsak says:
    November 5, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    Jon, you talk­ing about sub­marines would be like you giv­ing your opin­ion about life in a min­ing camp. One where the min­ers go to work for 3 months and don’t come out until then. You can’t do it. 

    You could sim­ply tell me that women don’t belong on sub­marines, and I’d agree. You could ask me how it would be pos­si­ble to inte­grate women onto sub­marines, and I’d tell you. You don’t need to be retarded and post a lame com­ment, because that doesn’t ben­e­fit anyone. 

    So yeah, we get it. Women on sub­marines are a bad idea. Now you get it: It’s going to hap­pen, and you can keep your fin­gers on your mouse and let the qual­i­fied guys explain to you how it’s going to work.

    Reply
  13. Ex-STS1(SS) says:
    November 6, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    A kinder, gen­tler US Submarine Force of today can prob­a­bly deal with women being on subs. Without a real enemy, the Submarine Force has lost it’s role of being a use­full com­mod­ity of pro­ject­ing seapower and pro­tect­ing sealanes. As with the nam­ing of sub­marines, the issue of women on sub­marines is a polit­i­cal state­ment. The idea of women serv­ing on US subs is cre­ated and pushed by indi­vid­ules with no con­cept of the real prob­lems this so-​​called vision will cause. 

    I agree with PO Filbey. Thank God I got out over 20 years ago! 

    The hard charg­ing US Sub Force of the Cold War era would not have tol­er­ated the thought of hav­ing women onboard a deployed sub­ma­rine. There was a job to be done and not a time for so-​​called polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness and man­dated equality. 

    I served on a nuclear pow­ered Fast Attack sub for 6 years and made 4 major deploy­ments between 1981 and 1985. At that time, this idea would have been an absurd ges­ture, but times have changed. Who knows, maybe an injec­tion of the female per­sua­sion will help the US Submarine Force regain some of the lus­ter and pride it seems to have lost in the last 20 years.

    Reply
  14. Brother Phil says:
    November 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    at bat­tle sta­tions or the flood­ing alarm there is no time for mod­esty when one has to react to the sit­u­a­tion at hand…men are suited to live like animals..and any­one who has ever flooded bal­last knows there just isn’t room for women…the thought of it might seem like a good idea to high rank­ing offi­cials with polit­i­cal aspi­ra­tions
    but to subsailors…it just won’t work

    Reply
  15. Designer says:
    November 7, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Shoot! I KNOW I would have a dirt-​​eating grin on MY face, that is IF I ever had the oppor­tu­nity to drive a multi-​​thousand ton, billion-​​dollar boat (even if it is just the rud­ders and not the planes).

    You would or did too… The joy of expe­ri­ence is part of why we serve, unless you strove to be a nuclear monk.

    Why take one photo of exu­ber­ance and twist the mid into a fool­ish “girl”. As she gets older she will get the hang of it. As a woman, she sta­tis­ti­cally might even have a bet­ter atten­tion span, with less inter­per­sonal aggres­sion in con­fined sit­u­a­tions, then you and oth­ers as typ­i­cal males.

    To be fair, sta­tis­ti­cally she may also have more dif­fi­culty pound­ing in a bung over­head in a flood­ing com­part­ment, but then how many dol­phins stand­ing watch after chow have the rip­pled steel bel­lies of SEALs?

    Trust me, if there are dom­i­nant, expe­ri­enced older women on the boat, they will police their “girls” in ways that as a male you may never per­ceive much less com­pre­hend. There is a sub­stan­tial sub-​​language among women to which men are gen­er­ally oblivious.

    Further, every Captain and Admiral will be watch­ing the behav­ior of the low­est female (and male) sea­man, along with Congress and the world. I have much antic­i­pated sym­pa­thy (and respect) for the first female CPO aboard.

    Reply
    • VCS Shipbuilder says:
      November 11, 2009 at 1:59 am

      Thanks for the only oppos­ing view on this issue. It has been my expe­ri­ence (as a sailor, enlisted, offi­cer (yes mus­tang!) that the major­ity of our sailors can get used to any­thing given enough time. (I once saw a third class walk into the prop arc of an E-​​2 while star­ing at the pos­te­rior of a new female plane cap­tain aboard the newly inte­grated USS Lincoln. He was sum­mar­ily tack­led by a ship­mate.) The point is: the biggest weapon in any warfighter’s arse­nal is the abil­ity to adapt to change. We do it bet­ter together like we do every­thing else. I have known too many bril­liant sub­mariners to believe that this is an insur­mount­able chal­lenge. This is the Navy’s elite fight­ing force. It can get over an inte­gra­tion of the sexes just as eas­ily (if not eas­ier) than the rest of us.

      Reply
  16. John says:
    November 7, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    Wow after read­ing these var­ied com­ments, I am sur­prised and edu­cated. I do think IT WILL COME if not only for the PC but oppor­tu­nity for advance­ment as well as the expe­ri­ence and resume filler. Do I believe it to be a good idea? No, work­ing in the con­struc­tion busi­ness for almost 30 years and see­ing the effect of women injected into a for­mally mens’ realm it can be very dis­rup­tive as well as unfair. Under the sea for 6 or so months???, Good luck. John

    Reply
  17. Zandor says:
    November 8, 2009 at 12:46 am

    Dear Designer;

    It is some­what strange that the German Armed forces seemed to not have it’s sub­ma­rine forces staffed by females. 

    The Germans are effi­cient, so how could they have missed out on this oppor­tu­nity to increase efficiency? 

    Not only that, but as well, the Whermacht’s SS Panzer Divisions were notibly def­fi­cient in Female tank commanders. 

    In fact, there was not even one sin­gle female Field Marshal in the German Army. 

    Is that the rea­son that the German’s lost WW 2? 

    Fems Uber Alles.

    Reply
  18. joebuff says:
    November 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Designer raises a real inter­est­ing point. Nazi Germany was very sex­ist. They resorted to young boys and old men as sol­diers when they got desparate, but not women sol­diers, yet some good pro­por­tion of draft-​​age women do make very good sol­diers. [Does any­one out there have a good esti­mate what that pro­por­tion might be in today’s vol­un­teer U.S. Army?] The Soviet Union had lots of women sol­diers, par­ti­sans, com­mis­sars, and so on. The USSR whupped Hitler’s ass. Mayhap this is some cause-​​and-​​effect?

    Reply
  19. gsak says:
    November 10, 2009 at 3:05 am

    I guar­an­tee that hav­ing a bad skip­per, bad chiefs, bad LPO etc. would be worse than hav­ing a hand­ful of women onboard.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      The US Military should hold annual fashion shows. The Army...
      Zandor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'd also like to point out, that soldier systems has been...
      a1189
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Totally forgot about astrogation. Star maps loaded into a...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      freefalling: -The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it...
      Charles
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      batvette: A lot of JSF money was spent before the meltdown....
      Charles
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
      Phantom Works is Boeing is it not? I dunno what...
      Charles
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Senator McCain says, “ Sticks and stones may break my bones...
      Alton
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Jimbo thats pretty much all the british government...
      Valcan
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      I hope so; flexible armor may save lives because...
      Marcase
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage