US Navy Mans Two Nuclear Subs with Women

[Onkel Neal]

Sad but true. (http://www.subsim.com/new_york_times_sub_article.htm) Somehow, I think we all knew this day would come. :doh:

[antikristuseke]

Whats sad about it?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

April Fooools!






....right? :doh:

[Ducimus]

yeah, APr fools

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, I was fooled in the other thread.

But, just a thought: would it still be 'manning'?

[JSLTIGER]

Found it.

[silentrunner]

Whats sad about it? How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!:/\\chop I do not believe I have ever been insulted more in my entire life. Imagine that SHIII where you can't hunt because you have to take out the trash.:nope:

Hey I just realized this is my first Subsim April fools!! The easter egg was easy due to the fact that the reporters were named Scope Handley, and Tip Biggelow.

[NefariousKoel]

I thought this was an exceptionally funny touch:

Now, however, with the backing of outgoing President George Bush, the Navy plans to get women into submarines and avoid mixing with seamen by making two US Virginia class subs consist of all-female crew and officers.

[ETR3(SS)]

You know I gotta say, reading that article about made me NOT re-enlist for another tour aboard submarines. Good thing it's not for real...yet.

[HunterICX]

''Crash dive!''
-Negative, I will break my nail if I do that!


:lol:

HunterICX

[antikristuseke]

OH April fools day, damnit Neal, you got me.:damn:

[Penelope_Grey]

And you wonder why Subsim doesn't have more female members :nope:

[Skybird]

Ouch... I'm hit! Neal, I'll have my vengeance on you! :stare:

Not before they mentioned two subs manned by two all-female crews, I started to feel strange about what I read...

[Tchocky]

And you wonder why Subsim doesn't have more female members :nope:
*horribly sexist response* ;)

Don't feel so bad, P_G. It's my birthday today and no-one believes me :p

[Steel_Tomb]

:lol: Nice one there, I LOL'd at this http://www.subsim.com/cnn_story_040105_bush.html

http://www.subsim.com/2005_design/images/bushdw2.jpg

Bush playing DW, "Get the joint chiefs up here, I'm under attack from a submarine!"

Joint Cheif's -"Ok sir, to fire your torpedo you press that big red button there.."

Bush- "Hehehehe... this is fun!" *EMERGENCY PROCEDURES SURFACE THE SHIP!*

Joint Chief's- "No not that one!" *Conn, sonar, torpedo in the water bearing 2 3 0!*

Bush- *crying* "Why do they always pick on me, I wanna win!"

Sad, but you can just picture it lol :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Bill Nichols]

Sad but true. (http://www.subsim.com/new_york_times_sub_article.htm) Somehow, I think we all knew this day would come. :doh:

Well, this morning I logged onto Subsim fully expecting an April Fool article. What I found was so well done that I had to do a double-take, just to make sure it wasn't real :o

Well done, Neal!

:rock:

[Onkel Neal]

Sad but true. (http://www.subsim.com/new_york_times_sub_article.htm) Somehow, I think we all knew this day would come. :doh:

Well, this morning I logged onto Subsim fully expecting an April Fool article. What I found was so well done that I had to do a double-take, just to make sure it wasn't real :o

Well done, Neal!

:rock:

Fooled Bill? The highest compliment :yep:

Guys, if you have time, spread the link to other websites, blogs, and forums, it's a blast to watch this unfold across the web. :up:

[Oberon]

I've spread it across to Uktrainsim and Qpawn sites, not really a member of any other large scale forums.

The best way to do it, I think, is to use the [url=] tags so that people don't actually see the URL, as Neal has done in the first post of this thread.

Oh, and Easter eggs are fun :up:

[Sailor Steve]

Suckered me good, you did!:rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

I honestly was going for this until I kept reading. :rotfl:

[AirborneTD]

Nice one!

Chris

[Marinero706]

Craziness... I was wondering when I started reading about 340 women... That's too many for 2 subs, and there aren't that many female nuclear-trained officers and chiefs (I think).

[PeriscopeDepth]

Very well written Neal! Perhaps you and Brag should write something humorous? :hmm:

PD

[RickC Sniper]

I was a believer untill I scrolled down far enough to see the Subsim Almanac advertisement.

[XanderF]

The coup de grâce for the article would have been if they announced the names of the new subs being commissioned for this purpose:

SSN-784 USS Amazon
SSN-785 USS Valkyrie

[Midnight Hunter]

I figured it was a fake really quick.. glad I was right lol

[ASW Jedi]

Yep had me going for a few minutes

I posted it to Navy Together We Served. I am sure the old salts will have a conniption fit at this one.

[sluissa]

Very bad taste.

I'm disappointed there are still people in the world that believe women should be restricted from any job.


The people who made this fake article should be ashamed of themselves... I know they won't be though, just the way the world is.

[Nate8thcvi]

What is this world coming to?

Nate

[PeriscopeDepth]

Very bad taste.

I'm disappointed there are still people in the world that believe women should be restricted from any job.


The people who made this fake article should be ashamed of themselves... I know they won't be though, just the way the world is.
Lighten up a lil bit. There are obvious and legitimate reasons why women cannot serve on submarines.

PD

[werdegast]

"I Found the Subsim 2008 April Fool's Easter Egg!"

:rock:

:arrgh!:

:sunny:

[XanderF]

Very bad taste.

I'm disappointed there are still people in the world that believe women should be restricted from any job.


The people who made this fake article should be ashamed of themselves... I know they won't be though, just the way the world is.
Lighten up a lil bit. There are obvious and legitimate reasons why women cannot serve on submarines.

PD

No kidding.

It's nothing to do with skills or capability, it's simply pure biology. You know submarines have no medical facilities, right? NONE? Here - pic of 'medical space' on an attack sub (http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/images/Submarines/sub8.jpg).

And, unlike a carrier/destroyer/cruiser, if someone ends up pregnant on the ship (which has happened on nearly ALL surface ships women have been stationed on with mixed-crews), you can't just land a helo on the deck to bring them to shore. Indeed, depending on where the sub is stationed, there is likely no way to get them off the boat at all without returning to dock...costing literally millions of dollars. Submarines are kind of a unique thing - very oddly designed for a specific mission, and requiring all kinds of special considerations in operations as it is.

Forget the fact that (the article in question) a submarine full of women would have other issues. I assume you know that groups of women, when living in proximity, end up with their monthly cycles in sync (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0000/ai_2603000088/pg_1)? I certainly respect women's ability to control this to a large extent, and in mixed-company crews, it's almost never an issue. But on a small, tightly enclosed space like a submarine? With an all-female crew? Can you IMAGINE the stress that would cause?

[GSpector]

Now that story has "history in the making" writen all over it :up:

[sluissa]

Very bad taste.

I'm disappointed there are still people in the world that believe women should be restricted from any job.


The people who made this fake article should be ashamed of themselves... I know they won't be though, just the way the world is.
Lighten up a lil bit. There are obvious and legitimate reasons why women cannot serve on submarines.

PD
No kidding.

It's nothing to do with skills or capability, it's simply pure biology. You know submarines have no medical facilities, right? NONE? Here - pic of 'medical space' on an attack sub (http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/images/Submarines/sub8.jpg).

And, unlike a carrier/destroyer/cruiser, if someone ends up pregnant on the ship (which has happened on nearly ALL surface ships women have been stationed on with mixed-crews), you can't just land a helo on the deck to bring them to shore. Indeed, depending on where the sub is stationed, there is likely no way to get them off the boat at all without returning to dock...costing literally millions of dollars. Submarines are kind of a unique thing - very oddly designed for a specific mission, and requiring all kinds of special considerations in operations as it is.

Forget the fact that (the article in question) a submarine full of women would have other issues. I assume you know that groups of women, when living in proximity, end up with their monthly cycles in sync (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0000/ai_2603000088/pg_1)? I certainly respect women's ability to control this to a large extent, and in mixed-company crews, it's almost never an issue. But on a small, tightly enclosed space like a submarine? With an all-female crew? Can you IMAGINE the stress that would cause?


Women do things all the time with little or no medical facilities. The idea of an all-women crew could certainly stop them from getting pregnant if they all just took a pregnancy test before they left. Medications can cut down on periods. Women go into space, a much more confined and arguably dangerous place.

My main disgust at the fake article though, was that it was more like a taunt. "Women will never be in subs. NAH NAH NAH" It's one thing to have those reasons and use them as an excuse in case it ever comes up, but to just rub it in their face like the fake article does, it's insulting.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sometimes a joke is just a joke. Laugh a little; you'll live longer.

[sluissa]

Sometimes a joke is just a joke. Laugh a little; you'll live longer.

I laugh at jokes if I find them funny. I don't find this funny. Obviously I'm outnumbered here, so I'll drop it now.

[EdPerrone]

I suspect I am way late ... that'll teach me to start reading the SubSim e-mails FIRST when I get my mail......

--- Ed

[Marinero706]

Relax Sluissa, it's April first! You're being way too uptight to fit in on a sub's crew :)

When I see more female sailors coming through prototype that can actually turn the large valves (not just the little ones) on their own, I'll think you're right and their time has come. And no, they can't just go get someone else to do it for them. Everyone on a sub has to be able to do their own job, plus cross-training as backup. It's not just pushing buttons that makes a sub go...

[scrag]

Holy **** okay very funny. BTW the issue the USN is facing with Woman on Subs is 2 fold:
Habitability - woman currently require seperate berthing and heads
Proximity of space - there is a lot of incidental brushing as you pass another imagine getting a Dolley Parton or Anna Nicole - that would result in serious issues even if the Girl was okay and understood.
It is feasible on the SSGN/SSBN but SSN's not likely unless the US as a society relaxes some.

But ask the Aussie's how they like the female crew members (none that I spoken with are very happy with it)

[GSpector]

Women do things all the time with little or no medical facilities. The idea of an all-women crew could certainly stop them from getting pregnant if they all just took a pregnancy test before they left. Medications can cut down on periods. Women go into space, a much more confined and arguably dangerous place.

My main disgust at the fake article though, was that it was more like a taunt. "Women will never be in subs. NAH NAH NAH" It's one thing to have those reasons and use them as an excuse in case it ever comes up, but to just rub it in their face like the fake article does, it's insulting.

W:oW, have women actually been in Space up to 6 Months. If there average time in Space is about 30 days, I don't see a problem or the comparison.

Now, I do like the idea of an "All Female Crew" on a Sub as long as there is no chance that any of them could get pregnant while at shore.

What would happen if just 1 lady actually came aboard and was not aware she was pregnant? I realize in most cases, women do not give birth in 6 Months but what kind of condition do you really think she would be in, say after 3 months.

Very few guys can pass the psychological and physical testing required for Sub duty. Women go through a lot of changes, both psychologically and physically during the 9 Months. These are not things a Commander and Crew need to be worried about in a Sub. Being a Nuclear Sub just adds to the problems.

Of course, if H. Clinton should win (:nope:), I'm sure it will be brought up and possibly tested though not implemented

[To be]

I agree with sluissa, and I am very very disappointed in subsim for this. :down:

[cowman1009]

At first I thought....NO WAY!! Almost believable being that the NY Times "wrote" it. But then after some thought and remembering the date it was pretty simple.

[generalderpanzertruppen]

Australia became the second country in the world to allow women to serve on submarines in 1998. I don't see why some of you guys seem to have a problem with them serving in the Silent Service. We haven't lost a single Collins class sub because of women serving onboard, why would it be an issue for the USN? Get with the times guys! :D

[PeriscopeDepth]

Interesting, I did not know this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Women_as_part_of_crew

PD

[GSpector]

Interesting, I did not know this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Women_as_part_of_crew

PD

Thanks for the link. :up:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Australia became the second country in the world to allow women to serve on submarines in 1998. I don't see why some of you guys seem to have a problem with them serving in the Silent Service. We haven't lost a single Collins class sub because of women serving onboard, why would it be an issue for the USN? Get with the times guys! :D

It would be different if Australia operated SSNs/SSBNs. Whole different situation there. It's a lot different when you're on a diesel boat that stays out for a lot less time than nucs. Not to mention stays a lot closer to home for the most part.

PD

[Captain Vlad]

The joke itself seems...well, actually it is in poor taste a bit. Like someone else said, a taunt.

What's funny, though, is seeing all the opposition, all the same excuses used against female fighter pilots, etc, being trotted out again. Boys afraid to share their toys with the girls.

Grow a pair, gentlemen.:D

[scrag]

Talking with a good friend of mine that I work with the rest of the crew is not fond of them at all - actually dread having to deal with them or so it seems.

Norway had a female skipper - the difference is cultural to some extent.
The big experiment of integrating woman into front line service (Navy wise) has met with limited (at best success) We were all laughing at the messages from the Carrier that deployed with them on a Med Run (first ever). They ended up with some very interesting problems vs some very enterprising woman who knew how to make some money. Mast's cases rose, fights rose, etc.

The Navy can not by regulation can not assign a female to a ship that can not provide seperate facilities. End of story.

[hamiltonus]

And here I thought I'd go all April Fool's without a single prank. Thanks for covering me, Subsim!

MH

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

W:oW, have women actually been in Space up to 6 Months. If there average time in Space is about 30 days, I don't see a problem or the comparison.

Yes, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Lucid)... and one more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunita_Williams)...

What would happen if just 1 lady actually came aboard and was not aware she was pregnant? I realize in most cases, women do not give birth in 6 Months but what kind of condition do you really think she would be in, say after 3 months.

What happens if a guy got hurt on the boat (enough that he can't work) and you can't evac him?

Frankly, I see a lot of moving the goalposts when it comes to subs and women.

"Women just don't have what it takes to serve on subs."
Women serve on subs ... they aren't sinking.
"Yeah, but our subs are different."\

But ask the Aussie's how they like the female crew members (none that I spoken with are very happy with it)

Specifics?

[XanderF]

Australia became the second country in the world to allow women to serve on submarines in 1998. I don't see why some of you guys seem to have a problem with them serving in the Silent Service. We haven't lost a single Collins class sub because of women serving onboard, why would it be an issue for the USN? Get with the times guys! :D

It would be different if Australia operated SSNs/SSBNs. Whole different situation there. It's a lot different when you're on a diesel boat that stays out for a lot less time than nucs. Not to mention stays a lot closer to home for the most part.

PD

Indeed. Even our SSNs stay underwater for orders of magnitude more time than the diesels in the two navies mentioned, forget the boomers. It's really not a valid comparison.

W:oW, have women actually been in Space up to 6 Months. If there average time in Space is about 30 days, I don't see a problem or the comparison.

Yes, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Lucid)... and one more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunita_Williams)...


Are you REALLY comparing a PhD biochemist with an enlisted sailor? Really??

Surely, you realize the difference in professionalism between enlisted and even officer ranks, and you'd compared that to a Doctor of Philosophy as an equivelant example?

To whit, I'd argue that the case against female OFFICERS serving on submarines is a weaker argument. By nature, officers - and certainly command officers - are mostly 'segregated' anyway. Whether one is female or male makes less difference than it would otherwise appear. The only real argument standing in the way is the inability for most to meet the physical requirements - but I can certainly imagine exceptions to this (higher-ranking female officers with the requisite training to serve on a submarine and the ability to meet all of the same physical requirements required of the male crew) - and these women certainly could make a good case for being allowed on the boats.

But for ordinary crewman? I really can't imagine that ever happening on a nuke.

[GSpector]

W:oW, have women actually been in Space up to 6 Months. If there average time in Space is about 30 days, I don't see a problem or the comparison.

Yes, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Lucid)... and one more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunita_Williams)...

What would happen if just 1 lady actually came aboard and was not aware she was pregnant? I realize in most cases, women do not give birth in 6 Months but what kind of condition do you really think she would be in, say after 3 months.

What happens if a guy got hurt on the boat (enough that he can't work) and you can't evac him?

Frankly, I see a lot of moving the goalposts when it comes to subs and women.

"Women just don't have what it takes to serve on subs."
Women serve on subs ... they aren't sinking.
"Yeah, but our subs are different."\

Good argument, except that your comparison does compare experience with experience. As for the guy that gets hurt, that's a bit different then getting pregnant, unless he stays wounded for 3-6 months and if he did, I would certainly expect him to be very moody, most of the time. Either way, he would be in the way until the injury healed. Unless it's some X-Files type injury, I don't think the guys injury would end with an extra mouth to feed.

I looked at the 2 astronauts and with Lucid's age being 65, it would not give me a problem with having her as a Commander of a Sub. For one thing, I don't think there would be much chance considering she was born in January 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_14), 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943) and other then being on the MIR which has better facilities as far as size then the Shuttle) for 188 days, I did not see any 6 Month flights. The same for Williams (born September 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_19), 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965) ). Their combined Space Flights were very impressive though. William's at 42, could but I doubt she would accidentally get pregnant anytime soon so I would not be worried about her either. Both seem to be very professional in their fields.

As someone mentioned, women as crewmen just would not work out. If it ever happened, it would probably have to be an all woman crew. The only 3 positions I could see a female holding on a Co-ed Sub would be CMO, XO or Captain.

[Zero Niner]

Found it, but I suppose I'm too late...? :(

[Marinero706]

So far, not one person has responded to my legit argument against women in nuke boats. Not one person who's argued in favor of it has had time in the nuclear training pipeline, supervising and working with females in a submarine nuclear plant. So if all you've got to offer is "it's not fair", or "the USN is hidebound", please relax and enjoy the joke. :lol:

I have no doubt in my mind that women can mentally (i.e.- psychologically and IQ-wise) function in a submarine environment. I'm also certain that with a little adjusting, the men would handle it, too. But the physical capability question remains. IF the Navy would start making females take the same PFT that males do, I'd begin to reconsider. DACOWITS would pitch a fit if they did, though. :damn:

The pregnancy issue is not insignificant. Every person you lose puts one watchstation port and stbd. Not a pleasant way to spend 6 months (or even one month).:x

[XabbaRus]

Okay, I was fooled in the other thread.

But, just a thought: would it still be 'manning'?

In today's world it would be called personning. No Seamen or seawomen anymore.

[goldorak]

Whats sad about it?


Yeah exactly whats sad about having one woman in a confined space with 100 or so males for sevral months ? :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Ask the judge when she files for rape http://www.smileygenerator.us/community/uploads/1182400429.CR.balamm-Judge.gif

[NefariousKoel]

Fooled Bill? The highest compliment :yep:

Guys, if you have time, spread the link to other websites, blogs, and forums, it's a blast to watch this unfold across the web. :up:
Way ahead of you - I posted it over at Madcow's the instant I saw it and got a couple people on the first. :rotfl:

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=20204

[GunnerGreg]

I've now gotten this from three different, but all VERY IRATE former submarine sailors...

This is one of those things that takes on a life of its own.

The funny part is, the more hate and discontent they try to stir up, the better the idea is likely to sound...

[Etienne]

In today's world it would be called personning. No Seamen or seawomen anymore.

Crewing. And seafarers. COMMERCIAL SHIPPING FTW! Office policies applied to the maritime world! W0000t!

Seriously, some merchant mariners still bitch about having to work with women (Stewards and cooks are fine; oilers, somehow... You need dangly bits to read gauges, I guess), and they've been around for a while. I don't know why, but generally, the louder someone moans about it, the more rooted in "tradition" they are. Tradition: Because if it's newer than me, it sucks.

Seriously, the only issue is privacy. If she's too stupid to use the pill or a pregnancy test, she shouldn't be anywhere near military hardware, anyway.

There's also the statistical fact that women usually have shorter careers at sea; but I don't see how that fact can be used in light of government's anti-discrimination policies.

[GSpector]

Okay, I was fooled in the other thread.

But, just a thought: would it still be 'manning'?

In today's world it would be called personning. No Seamen or seawomen anymore.

Yeah and we will no longer be called human. We'll all just be called Earthlings and we can all now discuss our Earthling Rights :rotfl:

I am also still waiting for Manhole Covers to start being called Sewer Access Hatches