Yesterday, I participated in my first DODLive Blogger’s Roundtable. The event featured Rear Adm. Bruner, Commander Submarine Group Ten. I am sure he would have answered any questions concerning the current state of the submarine force, but the main topic on everyone’s mind was the female Sailor integration into submarine service.
The question I was going to lead off with concerned the enlisted female integration plan. I was to go first, and the Admiral, inadvertently, had me adjust my questioning on the fly when he stated in his opening comments;
“While the Navy envisions integrating female officers, we’ll continue planning to integrate enlisted women in submarines. However, right now we don’t have a time or a set timeline to integrate enlisted females.”
Here it is; [the] Navy’s stance as to why women have not been assigned to submarines up to this point has been because there has been limited habitability and privacy on board the boats. Are there plans to overhaul the current platforms to facilitate the integration even further, or are we going to be limited to the maybe two or three per crew over the near term? Or as new submarines are built, [is the] female contingent going to be planned for and [developed] that way in the future?
ADM. BRUNER: The answer to your question is we’re approaching this in a very deliberate fashion, as you would expect. We’re all — all of us in the Submarine Force, the leadership — we’re all nuclear-trained and we do everything after very carefully planning and determining what is absolutely the best way ahead to ensure success.
So the answer to your question is right now we have 18 submarines out there that each have two crews. So it’s 36 crews that are ready- built, so to speak, to bring female officers on board.
So in a very deliberate fashion, we’ll bring those female officers on board. We may actually end up eventually with more than two or three or four. I don’t know what we’ll end up with in terms of women.
The plan is two ensigns and then a supply officer for each of those crews. But as we implement this, we’ll learn lessons and then based on what we learn over the next five years as we bring women aboard those 18 submarines, those 36 crews, then we’ll make the decision on what the next step ahead is.
I can tell you we’re actively looking at what the cost would be to modify our SSN force and to modify our Trident force to bring enlisted on board. Although we have the privacy right now to bring officers, female officers on board the Trident Class, we don’t have the privacy to bring enlisted women on board. So there would be a cost associated with that.
So we’re trying to in a very deliberate fashion work our way through this and make sure that we’re, one, treating the men and the women exactly the same and, two, to be brutally frank, we’re very careful that we’re doing the right thing in terms of representing both the taxpayers’ dollars and America as a whole.
The cost of reorganizing a submarine to ensure there is sufficient habitability is a concern, those costs must be weighed against the overall benefit; of course, If it is too costly to change the current platforms for enlisted females, then the next generation of submarines should be built with accommodations for both sexes in mind.
The female officer integration, on the other hand, must proceed at a faster rate. The driver being that in the next few years, 52% of America’s total workforce will be female.
ADM. BRUNER: One of the things it’s important to note is that over the last 40 years we’ve gone from where Navy males graduated from college, 75 percent of them got technical degrees, to now they only — (45 ?) percent of all the males are getting technical degrees. And women have gone up to the point where today women are actually gaining more technical degrees than men are. So we really need to open up the talent pool.
And in a response to a question concerning bringing more women with a technical [education] presented by Sandra Erwin of the National Defense Magazine;
ADM. BRUNER: And then what I was trying to say, and I hope I didn’t misspeak, but over the years, what we’re seeing is more and more women are getting technical education and fewer and fewer men. And this would be percentage-wise — (word inaudible).
So for us to maintain a great pool for us to pick from of the most talented young people to become officers in the nuclear submarine fleet, we really need to open up our talent pool, because the pool’s not — in fact, the pool’s getting smaller as we move forward in time.
The Navy must attempt to keep up with the ever changing workforce demographics, and break as many of the remaining gender barriers that make sense.
The Admiral explained that he had spent time, about a month total, on Australian submarines with mixed-gender crews – this may explain why he was picked to head the Navy’s Task Force for Women on Submarines – I didn’t ask that; however, I did ask the Admiral what takeaways he had from the experience with the Australian Navy;
I’ll tell you, I first rode in 2000 — I’m sorry, August of 2001. And I flew down to Australia and got on one of their submarines. And I really went on board — at that time I’d been very experienced, had had command of a submarine, had been at sea for more than 10 years on submarines.
And I really went down there kind of saying this is going to be a screwed-up situation. And I will tell you, I left with the impression that their submarine crews were just as proficient as ours.
And then I had a year to think about it, and I went back down there again to teach another class and left with that same opinion again. And then not too long after that I spent two years as the chief of staff and the deputy commander of a strike group where all 10 ships were men and women both, all U.S. ships.
I rode all those ships over that two years. We deployed four times. And I’ll tell you, there are some women aboard those ships that are better than the men, and I’m talking about officers. I’m sure it’s the same with enlisted, but we’re focused on officers in this right now.
So I would say that when you actually get out there and watch a mixed-gender ship, whether it’s a submarine or a ship, operate, when you walk off the ship, you kind of just go, you know, I don’t know what the big deal is. They do great.
I stand by the premise that all opportunities should be open to all programs for those who can meet the requirements, and this includes the submarine force. As long as the health of the force is fully considered and done in a fiscally responsible way; in no way do I support the idea that we should just move a few racks around, and then station females on board without taking everything into consideration. Total integration, to include the enlisted Sailors, may happen too quickly for some, and not quick enough for others, or may not even happen at all – it is too early to tell, but with the measured approach Rear Adm. Bruner and the Navy is taking, I feel confident they will ensure the “proper” integration into the submarine service of the fairer sex.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Oh, I understand that completely. What I’m saying is that, whether or not it is true, this will eventually end up before a judge somewhere. All it takes is the right lawyer and the right “victim’s group” to press the issue.
Respects,
Navy Recruiting Blog about the enlistment process and benefits of service. This is NOT an official Navy web site. The opinions expressed are my own, and may not be in-line with Big Navy.
©2004-2012 Navy CyberSpace Blog
- Privacy Policy
It’s definitely going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
My big concern is that 10-12 years down the pike, some female sailor or officer who served aboard subs will sue when she finds out she’s infertile, or that her unborn child has some birth defect, and blame it all on exposure to radiation.
This will be the female’s version of “Agent Orange” or “Gulf War Syndrome”, etc. And it will happen.
If those in charge are serious about this idea, they ought to have the women sign waivers and statements about radiation exposure, the limits of shielding in small areas, etc.
respects,