(05-27-2014 01:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There was a study conducted in the '80's that look at the rounds per minute performance of an all female Howitzer gun crew. For the life of me I cannot find it anywhere on the interwebs, but I'm sure you can guess what the results were. Despite months of training, said crew could not approach the RPM, sustainment, nor the endurance of a male gun crew.

If the study's conclusions were "wrong", it's entirely possible that all written records were burned and the witnesses reassigned to KP for the rest of their career.

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Better than the billions it is going to cost to change current submarine berthing spaces to allow enlisted female sailors to serve on boats.

(05-27-2014 02:08 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Better than the billions it is going to cost to change current submarine berthing spaces to allow enlisted female sailors to serve on boats.

Apparently the Virginia SSN's are designed with enlisted women in mind. By the time the Navy gets around to that though, all of the LA's should be retired.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a service whose motto is/was, "join the Navy and see the world," that they would be subject to months of sea duty. With that said things will happen. We know which things, right. I would put a stop to women on ships and in a way have them revert to the old Navy or WAVES. Only men belong on a warship. You might say that even warships need administrators but like in the olden days guys did that work there. Sometimes we tend to take gender equality in this type of matters tooooooo far.

(05-27-2014 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:08 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Better than the billions it is going to cost to change current submarine berthing spaces to allow enlisted female sailors to serve on boats.

Apparently the Virginia SSN's are designed with enlisted women in mind. By the time the Navy gets around to that though, all of the LA's should be retired.

They are trying to fast track enlisted women, I expect to see it within the next 5 years. Virginias are set up a little better with separate heads for each berthing area, but it is still not a perfect solution. The layout of Virginia berthing is absolutely awful. It almost feels like as they were designing it they got to the end and said, "Hey, maybe we should put someplace for these guys to sleep."

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

I can imagine it and I see a madhouse.

Just basing that off of what I learned from the female units in basic.

(05-27-2014 12:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  By "senior", I'm guessing he means women of non childbearing age.

I suspect that it is what he meant, too.

The frightening (to those who care about the effectiveness and readiness of the Armed Forces) thing is, he probably thinks that would make a difference in behavior among other people on board.

Basically E-6 level and above personnel. I was in for seven years and can could the number of female chiefs I had at my 4 commands on one hand. Now, these women were very professional, but a simply few are far in between. Rarely are they in rates that would require them to deploy nor are they capable of providing the leadership these young female sailors require. Not because they don't want to, but because their advice will be received as paternalistic.

Come to think of it, I'm about the same. I can only remember about 3 female chiefs and I was only under 1. Female officers seemed to be everywhere though.

Women deserve the same crap that the rest of the military have to put up with.

(05-27-2014 10:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  They are trying to fast track enlisted women, I expect to see it within the next 5 years.

In the Navy and Air Force, the powers-that-be have been fast-tracking women into everything they possibly can since about 1991-'92. Legacy of the Tailhook Convention in Las Vegas.

(05-27-2014 10:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:08 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Better than the billions it is going to cost to change current submarine berthing spaces to allow enlisted female sailors to serve on boats.

Apparently the Virginia SSN's are designed with enlisted women in mind. By the time the Navy gets around to that though, all of the LA's should be retired.

They are trying to fast track enlisted women, I expect to see it within the next 5 years. Virginias are set up a little better with separate heads for each berthing area, but it is still not a perfect solution. The layout of Virginia berthing is absolutely awful. It almost feels like as they were designing it they got to the end and said, "Hey, maybe we should put someplace for these guys to sleep."

Hell, I thought all fast attacks were designed that way. Regardless, the Navy might want to fast track enlisted women, but how many females do you think make it though Nuclear Power School? I barely knew of any female STG's, where in the world will they find some to be STS's? Maybe they will be able to scrounge up some ET's, but good luck finding female MM's or EM's. This is to say nothing of the fact that if you're a enlisted women capability of making it a senior leadership position, the military will do everything possible to get them commissioned as officers.

(05-28-2014 07:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  the Navy might want to fast track enlisted women, but how many females do you think make it though Nuclear Power School? I barely knew of any female STG's, where in the world will they find some to be STS's? Maybe they will be able to scrounge up some ET's, but good luck finding female MM's or EM's. This is to say nothing of the fact that if you're a enlisted women capability of making it a senior leadership position, the military will do everything possible to get them commissioned as officers.

All valid points and questions, vandiver. But you overlook the core-fact that the integration of females into all levels of the Armed Forces is (and has been since the 1970s) an essentially POLITICAL process. The Navy and the other branches are given periodic mandates from civilian authorities (typically people with Zero military experience themselves) to Do Something About It, and they just have to deal with it as best they can. (So far, that doesn't seem to have happened in the submarine service. But who can say what the future holds). Sometimes the Armed Forces are able to make a military virtue out of a political necessity (these are, after all, some of the most resourceful and improvisational men in the world), but most of the time they just end up stuck with the equivalent of that Howitzer crew you referred to earlier. And not only are they stuck with it, but even mentioning that it's a problem can be a career-killer. So anybody who wants to avoid the drama (never mind actually getting promoted) just keeps their head down and their mouth shut. I leave it to others to describe the cumulative effect this has on morale and preparedness.

(05-28-2014 07:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:52 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:08 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Better than the billions it is going to cost to change current submarine berthing spaces to allow enlisted female sailors to serve on boats.

Apparently the Virginia SSN's are designed with enlisted women in mind. By the time the Navy gets around to that though, all of the LA's should be retired.

They are trying to fast track enlisted women, I expect to see it within the next 5 years. Virginias are set up a little better with separate heads for each berthing area, but it is still not a perfect solution. The layout of Virginia berthing is absolutely awful. It almost feels like as they were designing it they got to the end and said, "Hey, maybe we should put someplace for these guys to sleep."

Hell, I thought all fast attacks were designed that way. Regardless, the Navy might want to fast track enlisted women, but how many females do you think make it though Nuclear Power School? I barely knew of any female STG's, where in the world will they find some to be STS's? Maybe they will be able to scrounge up some ET's, but good luck finding female MM's or EM's. This is to say nothing of the fact that if you're a enlisted women capability of making it a senior leadership position, the military will do everything possible to get them commissioned as officers.

The average power school class has about 5-10% females. They fail out of the program at about the same rate as male nucs. The majority of them when I was in power school were MMs (since about 2/3 of all nucs are MMs), but there were a few EMs and ETs. All nucs also must make their decision to volunteer for submarine service during boot camp. Those that fail out of the nuclear pipeline go straight to submarine school. MMs become conventional MMs (which is what I did), the ETs and EMs get converted to ETs, STs, and MTs. They will be able to find female sailors for all rates on submarines.

I personally served on Tridents and think that despite the larger berthing areas, it will be difficult to transition enlisted women onto them. There are only two heads for the blue shirts and you must walk through the missile compartment to get to them. It wasn't too bad when we had female middies riding our boat for a few days since they would make one of the heads female only sometime between meals so they could shower. However, if they were watch standers, it would have been much more difficult to schedule a time for one of the two blue shirt heads to be made female only during watch turnover. The only real option would be to add another head somewhere that could be for female use all the time. That would be a very costly undertaking.

You still think like a sailor with all those acronyms. I remember them well from when I was in the Reserve. LOL

The link below is to a pdf file of a report on the subject of retaining Navy officers. It was written/compiled by active-duty USN and presented to high-level officers in March of this year. Now it is available to the public:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/535...20NWCR.pdf

It's a complex subject, not given to snarky comments or pithy descriptions. But all-in-all, it does paint a picture of an organization that is slowly (or even not-so-slowly) alienating the types of people who have always been relied upon to fill its ranks. And with no sign that other types of people are rushing forward to replace them.

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

A new Tina Fey movie: "Mean Girls Go Down."

(10-01-2014 01:33 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

A new Tina Fey movie: "Mean Girls Go Down."

I'm so glad I brought this thread back to life!

(10-01-2014 12:14 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The link below is to a pdf file of a report on the subject of retaining Navy officers. It was written/compiled by active-duty USN and presented to high-level officers in March of this year. Now it is available to the public:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/535...20NWCR.pdf

It's a complex subject, not given to snarky comments or pithy descriptions. But all-in-all, it does paint a picture of an organization that is slowly (or even not-so-slowly) alienating the types of people who have always been relied upon to fill its ranks. And with no sign that other types of people are rushing forward to replace them.

A good read, but didn't really cover any new ground. Thus the article probably flew over the heads of the flag staff they were briefing. For example, the paper mentions OPTEMPO, which everyone stationed at an at sea command knows is brutal. What is also known is that there is no solution for this problem because the Navy refuses to scale back and/or redefine its mission profile. If I were CNO, I would do the following:

* Stop Building Burke Destroyers and purchase the USCG Nat'l Security Cutter. Current DDG's are too manpower and tech intensive for the current mission of the US Navy, which is patrol.

*Turn Shore Duty into Garrison Duty. After completing the at sea tour, sailors should be billeted much like the Air Force is and not be charged with maintaining the shore portion of the sailing branch. Give all those duties and responsibilities over to civilians.

*Liaison with other nations to create the 1000 ship Navy of real merit. The US Navy doesn't really need to patrol the Mediterranean with allies like Germany, France, Spain, Italy and England already sailing those waters. A similar alliance could be created in the Pacific with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan and maybe India. Use these nations to reduce to stress on US assets.

(10-01-2014 01:33 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

A new Tina Fey movie: "Mean Girls Go Down."

Which PERIOD of time would they be meanest?

Is anyone surprised that a voyeur ring would pop up once they integrated submarines? Of course not. These bubbleheads just gave social engineers the hammer they needed to reform the Silent Service. Standby for months of Sexual Harassment powerpoint presentations.

(05-27-2014 12:56 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

You don't think they can currently get condoms?

They don't seem to be using them.

A lot of them get pregnant to get off the ship. You can give them condoms, but you can't make them use them.

You put men and women trapped on a ship together for long periods? Nature is going to step in. We are no different than any other animal in this regard.