I made a prediction a few months ago that these idiots would start trying to implement what Clinton couldn't when it came to DADT and women on subs.
DACOWITS The Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services is behind all of it I guarantee you.
They pushed Clinton's social experiment in the military and they are behind it now. I'd bet my paycheck.
The CNO and SecNav need to go back and research exactly why putting females on subs didn't work last time.
And it mainly revolved around cost. You'd have to redesign every sub in the fleet and every sub in the design process to accommodate female berthing. The cost for that is staggering alone.
Can you imagine a male and female sailor hot bunking?
And the readiness issues due to pregnancy.
This is going to be a freaking mess...that will see Admirals and Sr NCO's who know this isn't a good thing being pushed aside and retired...and yes men who will try to make it happen put in their place.
It goes beyond that, TRG. Now I can't speak for today, but I would imagine it was pretty similar to what I had to deal with, so here goes:
Sea/shore rotation is SUPPOSED to be 5 years sea, 3 years shore for the nukes until you hit at least E-7, then you might get 3/3 if you get lucky. Me, I did 7 1/2 years before I saw my first (and only) shore duty. Some submarine rates (ET-NAV) are as bad as 5/2.
Now imagine, if you will, a command with about 130-135 people, split into divisions of anywhere between 4 and 14 people. Take a "small" division, like YN/SK. Typical fast boats will have a junior (E-3 or E-4) yeoman and a senior (E-6 or E-7), if you're lucky. Whoops! One of them just got preggo! Guess who just got screwed even worse? Now imagine this happening in several divisions. From a readiness standpoint, it's a disaster. Hell, aircraft carriers are hard hit with these issues before deployments, and ship's company on a CVN runs about 3200, PLUS the air-wing! Think it's gonna hurt that much more when you're trying to send 10-15 people to schools and take 115-120 out to sea on Westpac or Med run?
Next, let's address career development, both in the enlisted and officer ranks. More likely than not, females will migrate towards boomers first, given the habitability issues, but even those aren't solved given the fact even a T-hull only has two heads for the enlisted crew. More on that later. If women are restricted to boomers only, how is that going to help the males in their career development (particularly the officers) who tend to balance their careers between fast attacks and boomers? A similar situation exists for the enlisted. You guys better forget about going to King's Bay or Bangor. Pearl, Norfolk, or Groton, with a VERY slim outside chance of San Diego or Guam. That's IT.
Finally, habitability. Anyone who has ever been on a submarine for more than 15 minutes will tell you that this is gonna be a cluster**** of biblical proportions. Given the habitability/hotbunking/showering issues, it'll be a full-blown riot inside a week. And God help the poor bastard that gives Susie non-qual shit about her qual progress, fills her rack pan with TDU weights, or finds her poopy suit full of Mobil red grease one morning. Oh, and did I happen to mention the evaporator is busted and there's no showers for the next week? Stores load? This oughta be fun to watch, too! And as far as those conversations in Maneuvering on the midwatch, say goodbye to those, too.
Nope--this is killing morale and retention. But then again, maybe that's what they want.
