10. Can women go on submarines?
Women are not currently assigned to submarine crews because of the very limited habitability and privacy onboard a submarine. However, women have been on submarines for short durations as civilian technicians for specialized equipment testing, family members for one-day dependent cruises, and female midshipmen conducting two-day orientation cruises.
that's a weak argument because there's women just as harsh or harder then their male counterparts, like stated before the reason for women not being allowed to work aboard a submarine is:I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs
No, I haven't seen these figures anywhere! Are there any statistics available in the public domain re this? A lot of claims are being made which may or may not be correct. I would like to see some accurate statistics to back up these claims one way or the other.'Ever seen the pregnancy rate of women on board Aircraft Carriers?
I accept that the figures you mention here and in post 3 relating to medical emergencies provide a strong case for females not being assigned to nuclear subs which may deploy for long periods. The cost of 'converting' current subs would also be hard to justify.The main issue on UK/US Nuclear Boats is not one of privacy, it's one of national security. The statistical likelihood of a female crew-member becoming ill is three times greater than that of a male, which could result in an SSN or worse, SSBN being compromised because it is forced to abort a patrol or surface to CASAVAC a critically ill member of the crew.
Also the US DoD estimates it will cost 300K per-female crew space to change it's current batch of Sub's to coed!
The Royal Norwegian Navy subs are SSKs and I would imagine that they have a fairly short patrol duration, at least when compared to something like a USN SSN or SSBN. A short USN patrol might only last a few days, but a long patrol could run a few months. Given the cramped conditions, plus US tendencies to exclude women from "combat roles" a long duration patrol could well become an issue. On surface vessels, especially on large vessels like carriers, it's much less of an issue.I see no arguments for not letting women serv on sub's. In The Royal Norwegian Navy, we had the world's first female sub CO as long ago as 1995.
No alterations of the subs layout has been made.
Whats the average time at sea for each RNN SSK patrol? And whats the average time at sea for each USN SSN?I see no arguments for not letting women serv on sub's. In The Royal Norwegian Navy, we had the world's first female sub CO as long ago as 1995.
No alterations of the subs layout has been made.
I think that you make some good points in this post and the attached articles certainly support your ideas re this issue.I personally believe women in on-duty navy are fine (i.e. surface ships) because those ships can at least accommodate for most of the female conditions (i.e. giving birth). Like someone said earlier, you can't stop biology. It is very difficult to regulate sex on-board a navy vessel. So instead of prevention and deterrence, you have to focus on containment and that means knowing how to deal with it when it comes up, not just yelling at the couple.
On a sub, those conditions need to be sacrificed for the overall safety of the crew, the sub, and the mission. Again, like someone mentioned, breaking off a recon mission or patrol because a woman needs to be MEDEVACed is unacceptable. It compromises the three I mentioned above for a petty issue compared to the bigger picture.
Good points Rich. I originally had no objection to women serving on submarines but I was looking at the Australian situation with SSKs and in the case of American SSNs and SSBNs I have now changed my mind. With the long patrols undertaken by USN subs and the responsibility for the nuclear deterrent on board the SSBNs I am certain that you are totally correct. You need 100% discipline without unnecessary distractions. IMO, there is no room for political correctness to compromise this requirement.Having female Officers is a bit different then female service woman. Officers have strict non-fraternization rules with enlisted men and woman. In the US military such fraternization will probably ruin the career of an officer, if, they even survive the courts martial.
I dont like the idea of a bunch of 19yos, fresh out of high school, running around a SSN pulling their clothes on together during a drill. If so many girls get knocked up on a carrier then why wouldn't it happen on a submarine?
On Land bases none of this is a big deal. On a little tube in the ocean, 200' down, with 24 Trident D-5s loaded? Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one. Yank boats have tremendous firepower, long patrol times, and huge responsibilities. We need perfect discipline on them and that means 100% discipline, not 99%.
The last thing we need is some High school endless summer movie.
Just about everyone in the USN has heard those horror stories but that just doesn't happen to most ships.Here's a NYT story from '91. Click link for full story.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE6D6163BF933A05757C0A967958260
"Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say."