"New submarine technology to allow more women onboard" Topic

"But some critics fear it will make mixed crews more likely to romp on board.

Women have only been ­allowed on subs since 2011 and there are just three officers serving ­beneath the waves – but female ratings will be able to join them soon.

Top brass feared high ­levels of dangerous gases on board the vessels could harm ­unborn babies conceived ­before or during missions…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

While the Daily Star is even less reputable than the Daily Mail they are correct on this account, as I've been involved in the scientific experiments which cleared women for serving on board subs in the first place.

And now you know

And knowing is half the battle

GI JOE!

The Russkies wont be wasting money on stupid projects, that's for sure. I'm always amazed about the weirdness od US armed forces.

It's the RN doing this and besides what is stupid about it? If these women qualify as competent then they should be allowed to serve.
Ivan is not an equal opportunity employer, it's only prepared to offer impotence due to badly shrouded nuclear reactors to its men at sea. That's fine by me.

Given that the project was to make sure that if any of the female submariners got pregnant on a mission that the specific conditions would harm neither mother or child I would hardly call that "stupid"

And knowing is half the battle

The other half is fightin' n' killin'! Yo, Joe!

The Russkies wont be wasting money on stupid projects, that's for sure.

Doubling your pool of potential crew is a stupid project?

Personally, I'm just waiting for the deployment after all the female crew find themselves on the same cycle. *That* has the potential to be really ugly.

I'm always amazed about the weirdness od US armed forces.

UK in this case, but you can usually blame the politicians. No matter how much the idea may damage unit effectiveness, the military will do it and eat the fatalities.

Not that women can't crew subs or work on airplanes, or even keep up with the guys in combat. But there are no-joke physical requirements for a lot of those jobs.

For example, I had to be able to lift the 80lb bridge bag overhead (that's the bag with all the crap you need up in the bridge like radios, megaphones, charts, you name it). Not just lift that overhead, I had to be able to pick it up from down around my toes and lift it to full extension overhead.

Aircraft mechanics: The ejection seat in an F15 or F16 weighs 50lbs, and the mechanic needs to be able to lift that ONE-HANDED in order to safe the seat.

As far as keeping up with the guys in combat? The average soldier's gear-load is 80lbs (with some units pushing 125lbs!). For most of the guys, that's not a big deal because it's less than half their body weight. For most of the ladies, that's more than half their body weight, and that is NOT safe or healthy for anyone to be packing around. It will cause permanent physical damage to hump that much extra weight around for a year. Remember, this isn't just walking around, this is sprinting, runnning up and down hills, kicking in doors, etc, at all hours of the day and night, no sleep, no time to rest and recover.

Again I make a case, who in their right mind would be pregnant on a Sub, I'm an old guy and strength/mental wise this is a youngsters job. If you have the stress of being in a sub then the added of being pregnant on a long term duty its a weak point. When it comes to basic safety in any situation I'm not an equal opportunity person.
Practicality even with bad design is what I was saying about the Russians. Anyway their attitude is different.
And I bang the old drum, its because the base interest in being in the military is starting to dry up, so throw it open to all. That reason foe 'doubling the pool' I would believe.
Am I being a bit of a misogynist, unfair? I think not some of the brightest minds in the military are female today. But the right person for the right job must also be taken into account.
Yes modern armies need all to function but to (and I apologies I should have not been so fast to find against the US seeing as I remember an old story of the Dutch army allowing for hair nets for soldiers of both sexes in the past, was that true?)I know the world changes but to push a square into a round hole is not the solution.
Cheers, very though provoking article though.

Why do these stories keep getting the technology description wrong? 'Carbon scrubbers' remove organic contaminant, "carbon dioxide scrubbers' remove the carbon dioxide. A small quibble maybe, but as I have a professional interest in the story I like to see things correct.

Pregnancy rates are sure to rise, if this goes thru, regardless of the rules. As they said in Jurassic Park, "…nature finds a way…".

Perhaps chastity belts will make a comeback……

Again I make a case, who in their right mind would be pregnant on a Sub, I'm an old guy and strength/mental wise this is a youngsters job. If you have the stress of being in a sub then the added of being pregnant on a long term duty its a weak point. When it comes to basic safety in any situation I'm not an equal opportunity person.

I think the safety studies were focusing on early-fetal health, since a woman can be pregnant for ~8 weeks or so before she's reasonably sure she is (via two consecutive missed periods). It's not necessarily a problem on a boomer, since US boomer deployments are roughly 80 days long.

I would assume that a female getting pregnant while onboard ship would result in a very quick Captain's Mast, but there shouldn't be any catastrophic reason to punt the pregnant girl to the pier immediately.

I know that being pregnant was a guaranteed 'get out of deployment free' card when I was in the USN (up until 2006), and I'd assume that it still is. I just can't imagine raising a child being preferable to even 9 months deployed…

Based on my experience assigned to a Support Bn. Both sexes in all the units. All those youngsters with natural urges … I was glad to get back to an Infantry unit ! I like women … a lot … but it can be distracting at times.

I'm always amazed about the weirdness of US armed forces.

Too much PC, "touchy feely", etc. has filtered down from elected officials. To those on the frontline. But in the US, the military follows the orders of the elected civilain government … It's been that way since Day 1 …

I think the safety studies were focusing on early-fetal health

This

I was in the Coast Guard when we started to sail with mixed crews. Lots of fights, Captain's masts. A few pregnancies. Two women with very nice cars following a long cruise. I don't care if they're qualified or not, put a nineteen year old with raging hormones in a uniform and they're still 19 with raging hormones, no matter how many 'we're professionals' talks they have. I think it's a bad idea. I'd have no problem with an all female crew.

@Pete Melvin: good to know.

One summer, my sub was press-ganged into midshipman operations, having mids onboard for a day or a couple weeks. All the crew got the 'we are all professionals here' talk, but apparently the female mids didn't. Wearing loose 'boxers' or similar when going up topside and sprawling out on the deck to work on their tans… Yeah, they didn't leave much to the imagination…

Its always weird when the work I do leaks out into the "real" world, as normally its so long term you've forgotten about it or you were never given a full brief in the first place and so when it does pop up you don't even know you worked on it.