Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

NBC Evening News is reporting that the Secretary of Defense is going to request that the decades-long ban on female assignment to subs be lifted. With minor structural modifications, he expects that female Naval Academy grads in the next few years could go to new sub production. They did not say that current subs would be modified, but it shouldn't take THAT much to gradually do this during already-scheduled overhauls.

Normally, I don't hold with basing decisions on what other nations' services do, but Scandinavian sub services have had female participation for decades with few problems. This combined with the fact that females have been serving well in other areas of the Navy since WWI, I think it's well past time for this wall to fall.

Of course, the mere fact that SECDEF is planning to request this does not imply that it will immediately happen.

Opinions?

SuperHornet wrote:Opinions?

My opinion is that the Navy should retrofit waterbeds in all subs. Water sloshing in the middle of the ocean is far more stealthy than bed springs bouncing up and down.

93henfan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Opinions?

My opinion is that the Navy should retrofit waterbeds in all subs. Water sloshing in the middle of the ocean is far more stealthy than bed springs bouncing up and down.

I'd never get to sleep! I've never been able to sleep on a waterbed. BTW, the Navy does NOT use springs. We have a one- or two-inch thick mattress directly on top of the metal lid of the coffin locker.

Hammocks lashed ta standards be grand beddin fur tha crew.

Just codifies what every adult already knows: It's perfectly natural for women to go down with men.

SuperHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:
My opinion is that the Navy should retrofit waterbeds in all subs. Water sloshing in the middle of the ocean is far more stealthy than bed springs bouncing up and down.

I'd never get to sleep! I've never been able to sleep on a waterbed. BTW, the Navy does NOT use springs. We have a one- or two-inch thick mattress directly on top of the metal lid of the coffin locker.

I know, I know. Springs were critical to my punchline. Do they get springs in officer country?

I don't remember seeing springs there, but the accommodations are certainly a whole lot nicer. Unless you're on a big ship with an ensign bunkroom. But I'm not even sure they do that anymore except possibly in Marine country on amphibs.

SuperHornet wrote:I don't remember seeing springs there, but the accommodations are certainly a whole lot nicer. Unless you're on a big ship with an ensign bunkroom. But I'm not even sure they do that anymore except possibly in Marine country on amphibs.

I never did a full float in Marine country. I only had a cup of coffee for a few days on the USS Ponce for amphib familiarization and IIRC, all we got was the mini-mat you mentioned earlier.

SuperHornet wrote:NBC Evening News is reporting that the Secretary of Defense is going to request that the decades-long ban on female assignment to subs be lifted. With minor structural modifications, he expects that female Naval Academy grads in the next few years could go to new sub production. They did not say that current subs would be modified, but it shouldn't take THAT much to gradually do this during already-scheduled overhauls.

Normally, I don't hold with basing decisions on what other nations' services do, but Scandinavian sub services have had female participation for decades with few problems. This combined with the fact that females have been serving well in other areas of the Navy since WWI, I think it's well past time for this wall to fall.

Of course, the mere fact that SECDEF is planning to request this does not imply that it will immediately happen.

Opinions?

Nice thought, SuperHornet, but you have not taken into account the fact that the Scandinavians do not deploy for extended periods like Americans do. Hell, no one deploys for months at a time like we do.

If the change does come, we might have to adjust our vocabulary. The term "hot rack" will take on a whole new meaning.

Thank God I was never on a ship tight enough to require me to hot rack. But I certainly understand your sentiment. I DID serve on ships with girls, particularly officers.

SuperHornet wrote:Thank God I was never on a ship tight enough to require me to hot rack. But I certainly understand your sentiment. I DID serve on ships with girls, particularly officers.

Tied up next to a "love boat" tender in the North Arabian Sea for a week of mid cruise maintenance during the eighties, and served on a tin can "love boat" for the blockade of Haiti in the nineties... not long enough to get into trouble, thank goodness. The crew included both officer and enlisted women. Many of the females wore t-shirts in the Carib heat, but the twins had to be parked in their cup holders in strict compliance with military discipline. Quite provocative, nevertheless. For the most part, the destroyer crew seemed more professional than their destroyer tender counterparts, but then again, morale and discipline starts to sag after three months at sea.

Nearly a full page and "going down" and "seamen" hasn't been used yet? I expected more from you folks.....

native wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Thank God I was never on a ship tight enough to require me to hot rack. But I certainly understand your sentiment. I DID serve on ships with girls, particularly officers.

Tied up next to a "love boat" tender in the North Arabian Sea for a week of mid cruise maintenance during the eighties, and served on a tin can "love boat" for the blockade of Haiti in the nineties... not long enough to get into trouble, thank goodness. The crew included both officer and enlisted women. Many of the females wore t-shirts in the Carib heat, but the twins had to be parked in their cup holders in strict compliance with military discipline. Quite provocative, nevertheless. For the most part, the destroyer crew seemed more professional than their destroyer tender counterparts, but then again, morale and discipline starts to sag after three months at sea.

Shocking. Simply shocking.

Tenders....the "garage mechanics" of the Navy.

native wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Thank God I was never on a ship tight enough to require me to hot rack. But I certainly understand your sentiment. I DID serve on ships with girls, particularly officers.

Tied up next to a "love boat" tender in the North Arabian Sea for a week of mid cruise maintenance during the eighties, and served on a tin can "love boat" for the blockade of Haiti in the nineties... not long enough to get into trouble, thank goodness. The crew included both officer and enlisted women. Many of the females wore t-shirts in the Carib heat, but the twins had to be parked in their cup holders in strict compliance with military discipline. Quite provocative, nevertheless. For the most part, the destroyer crew seemed more professional than their destroyer tender counterparts, but then again, morale and discipline starts to sag after three months at sea.

I suppose you're speaking of the Cape Cod and the Acadia? When I first joined the San Diego fleet on a now-dearly departed CG (formerly DLG), those two were known throughout the waterfront as Love Boat I and Love Boat II (though I never really figured out which was which). Girls preggers all over the place, and fights between the two all over the place. Never really saw issues like that with other girl-friendly ships (i.e. DDGs and FFGs).

Then again, I suppose there were equivalent ships in Norfolk....

SuperHornet wrote:

native wrote:
Tied up next to a "love boat" tender in the North Arabian Sea for a week of mid cruise maintenance during the eighties, and served on a tin can "love boat" for the blockade of Haiti in the nineties... not long enough to get into trouble, thank goodness. The crew included both officer and enlisted women. Many of the females wore t-shirts in the Carib heat, but the twins had to be parked in their cup holders in strict compliance with military discipline. Quite provocative, nevertheless. For the most part, the destroyer crew seemed more professional than their destroyer tender counterparts, but then again, morale and discipline starts to sag after three months at sea.

I suppose you're speaking of the Cape Cod and the Acadia? When I first joined the San Diego fleet on a now-dearly departed CG (formerly DLG), those two were known throughout the waterfront as Love Boat I and Love Boat II (though I never really figured out which was which). Girls preggers all over the place, and fights between the two all over the place. Never really saw issues like that with other girl-friendly ships (i.e. DDGs and FFGs).

Then again, I suppose there were equivalent ships in Norfolk....

I can't remember the name of the tender to which we were tied up. Since it was half way around the world, it could have been out of either San Diego or Norfolk.

My observations and impressions of the differences between the tenders and the destroyers was the same as yours, SH.

native wrote:
I can't remember the name of the tender to which we were tied up.

Was it the Love Me, tender?

Cluck U wrote:

native wrote:
I can't remember the name of the tender to which we were tied up.

Was it the Love Me, tender?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Elvis actually got that tune from an old folk song called Aura Lee.

Rigid vessels packed with seamen, what could possibly detract from the mission?