Diverse Submarine Force

Oct 19, 2009, 6:27PM EST
Diverse Submarine Force
The Navy Times recently reported that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Secretary of the Navy released statements suggesting that women should serve aboard U.S. Navy submarines. But will the cost of reconfiguring submarines prohibit integration of the force?

Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen told congressional lawmakers that he thought it was time to end the ban against women on submarines.

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Roughead agrees saying “accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable.”

“Having commanded a mixed gender surface combatant, I am very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force. I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews,” he said. “The Navy has examined the feasibility of assigning women to submarines over the years, and I have been personally engaged on this.”

Roughead said the Navy must “manage the community as a whole, such as force growth and retention within a small warfare community.”

“The size of the submarine force is much smaller than the surface and aviation forces and personnel management is more exacting,” he continued. “This has had and will continue to have my personal attention as we work toward increasing the diversity of our Navy afloat and ashore.”

Women, who make up about 12% of the 1.2 million U.S. service members on active duty, are by policy excluded from traditional front-line combat jobs. But combat roles have become blurred during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which irregular warfare has brought women into harm’s way.

The Navy has approximately 7,900 female officers and 44,000 female sailors, comprising about 15% of the 330,500-strong active component. But while women have been assigned to surface warships since 1993, they remain banned from submarine crews and naval special warfare teams. Females can get qualified on nuclear reactors but are restricted to serving on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, not on any of the Navy’s 71 nuclear-powered submarines.

Submariners live in exceptionally close quarters, even taking turns sleeping in the same bunks on attack submarines. Officials have said the lack of privacy and the cost of reconfiguring subs already tightly packed with gear and crew members make it difficult to introduce female crewmembers.

 
Filed under: navy, submarines, women
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Bill Haimes
Submarines are laid out on a linear basis. Each compartment serves as the passageway to the next. It will be hard to find any way to isolate berthing for either gender. On the other side, these two admirals are the best leadership team the Navy has seen in a decade. If anyone can make it happen, they will.
10/26/2009 8:32:02 PM
 
Chuck Bunton
Agreed. From a leadership perspective, if the vision and plan are clearly articulated, women will be integrated. Future platforms can be modified but I believe reconfiguring the legacy boats (LA Class) will prove most difficult.
10/26/2009 10:08:17 PM
 
Michael Kay
I don't view this whole question as simply a berthing problem. It's likely that the SSBN's and SSGN's will be the first class of subs in which this experiment will launch since in terms of space,they may well be the easiest to refit. Future subs (As a former SSBN sailor I respectfully decline to use the current coin "platforms") will be in very short supply under the present Administration. The problem, as I see it, is the issue of fraternization. Now I don't know how big a problem this is on the nuc aircraft carriers, but it's out there, and it tends
to add more responsibliies to the Chiefs who, in addition to their primary duty of ensuring the efficient and safe operation of the ship, now have to deal with the psychological and sociological implications of the interactions between the sexes stemming from what I call "gender blendering" i.e. "let's throw them into a small space and see what happens". That being said, I hope the Navy makes sure that enough women join the crew of a sub to form a self-supporting cadre because it's not going to be easy to gain the respect and support of the male crewmenbers without it.
10/30/2009 11:04:52 PM
 
Bill Haimes
I have experience with carriers but long ago with LEXINGTON whom we had to designate an auxiliary to get the women aboard. We needed them for sheer numbers in the 80's. The attitude then was "Take it off the ship." Fraternization happened but only shoreside. Also, the women's berthing was all second deck below the angle, an add-on with the angle deck conversion and isolatable from the rest of the ship. Woe be unto any male found in that area without business there. The exception was officer's country where staterooms were interspersed. It was a shock to hear female voices in the next space. You got used to it. I imagine the fraternization problem will come down to a leadership issue in the end.
11/3/2009 9:35:38 PM
 
Robert Lewis
I appreciate Mr. Haimes remarks concerning the Lexington but I saw it from a somewhat different viewpoint. I was a civilian Repair Superintendent on many TAV's while the Lex was stationed in Pensacola. When we went on board, one of the first things we did, in the areas where we were going to do hotwork and in other areas pointed out by the Repair Officer or his CWO, was to remove the "Honeymoon Squats" located throughout the ship. Normally these would be mattresses stuffed into areas that were not often accessed. The usual debris associated with secret sex hideouts was strewn across the decks. We pulled dozens of dirty matresses off the ship. One of the problems that the Lex had was that she was designed for a war crew of X-number of personnel but as a training vessel, without a large Airdale contingent there were far fewer personnel (X/2)so much of the ship was no longer used. Unlike most ships, the Lex had too much space and too few NCO's to patrol it. In addition, the Navy did not always send the 'best of the best' to man the Lex and there was a discipline problem evident even to a mere civilian.
11/4/2009 10:44:23 AM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

5/22/2012

Bob Condon
Joseph has hit the nail on the head, politics seem to overr...

5/16/2012

Colin Henthorne
Thanks for your response, Dennis. You are correct that the...

5/16/2012

Dennis Bryant
From its commissioning until 1957, the LABRADOR was a ship ...

5/15/2012

Colin Henthorne
LABRADOR was decommissioned in 1962. In 1987, as a Coast G...

5/11/2012

CAPT SANDEEP KALIA
Dear Editor, Compliments for a very well written article...

5/7/2012

Murray Goldberg
Hey John - I think you tried to give me your e-mail address...

5/7/2012

John Douglas
email address

5/2/2012

Martin Rushmere
I must add a clarification to this. I am referring to the a...

5/1/2012

Dennis Bryant
John, You are swimming against the tide. Dennis

5/1/2012

Murray Goldberg
John - thank you so much! Incredibly we are approaching 130...