Women to be allowed to serve on Royal Navy submarines

One thing I noticed when the USN was debating putting females on subs was that the two sides seemed to seperate along generational lines.
Usually the opponents of putting women on submarines seemed to be older, and were the same guys who were against females going on surface ships and had the same tired reasons. The ones who seemed to have no problem with women on submarines were in general the current generation of enlisted and officer.

Just Curious, in the Western surface ships, do woman crew sharing same quarter, same bathroom with mans crew ? If they don’t, then the same partition arrangement has to be make available in the subs.

In the USN no. On the surface ships there are designated male and female berthings.

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Mx1kA3irk&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Well anybody would think this is happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaeaeJc2Cz8&feature=related

We sunk a truck!

in Indian navy women (officers only) serve on surface ships and new ships have separate accommodation for them in which 2-3 female officer would share a room.

no women on subs and that’s unlikely to change, given that IN ships tend to be overmanned to cater for continued functionality in case of battle casualties.

I’ve often seen you mention close ties with Japan in your contributions Swerve. Let me ask you whether women are allowed to crew JMSDF subs?. My understanding was that they were only allowed to deploy on surface ships 2 years ago and, comparitively, dual-gender crewing a surface ship is simplicity itself. Cultures can change and, I agree, do change, but, you cannot ignore the impact that culture has in this scenario. Just because something works for the Swedish, in the earlier example, doesnt mean it will for us.

Indeed. But the very fact that women are now allowed into JMSDF surface ship crews is evidence of a changing culture, & I hear of many other examples of it. There are still OLs decorating offices in Japan & making the tea, but fewer than there used to be, & more female executives, business owners, etc.

It’s a process. What was once unimaginable except to what was regarded as a lunatic fringe is now taken for granted. It proceeds at different rates in different countries, & in some places, goes into reverse at times (e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban), but generally, around the world, perceptions to the abilities & attitudes to the roles of men & women are moving towards an acceptance of equality, & the possibility of working in close proximity in a thoroughly professional way. It’ll take a long time before Japan is like Sweden, but it’s heading in that direction.

Well as I said we shall see, I remember much talk of the sky falling when woman were allowed onto the surface fleet but in general its been OK. Not perfect but OK.

RN has clearly said that woman will first go onto Vanguard class, as it will be officers first I think the accomodation can accomodate that.

In the end the MOD and RN have been in an increasingly difficult position on this matter, with the USN taking the plunge (pun intended) last year they couldn’t defend the prior position. They are hardly rushing are they, two or three female officers in a few years time.

But Jonesy, THERE WON’T BE ANY HOT BUNKING! Women are only going to serve on subs which don’t have it.

So A-class only then eh?. As the plans are for the T class boats to be in service past 2020 we are going to be training crew members up who are absolutely unable to redeploy onto some fleet boats and the bombers (ratings) because they are women?. You think that is a defensible option for operational crewing policy?. They want to do this in 10 years when we are near Astute-only and looking to bring in the Vanguard replacement then maybe its something to look at?. Today it is not the answer.

The RN has had time to get used to mixed crews on surface ships. They’re going to be introduced gradually on subs, officers first.

Surface ships not subs. Big difference.

The female junior officer I saw on the Beeb yesterday struck me as no-nonsense, keen as mustard & likely to have no trouble dealing with the environment. If there’s careful selection initially, starting with women like her, then I reckon by the time female junior rates start being considered for sub crews (I’d bet initially only where there are female officers aboard) then the male crewmen will be used to the idea.

I went through basic with a girl who damned near designed the 2016 sonar so I’m a long way from the type who still refer to ‘jennys’ as split**$es!. I am well aware some of the girls we get through, most notably going through BRNC, are of very high calibre. That, you have to understand, isnt the problem though. That is the top of a dangerously slippery slope.

The problem is when the ‘not-so-high-calibre’ ratings start filtering through, along the paths trailblazed by the competent officers, and run into the Navy that does still use the ‘traditional terminology’ and friction occurs in close, confined, quarters with no easy release-valves like runs ashore etc. You cant expect to have the former without realising the latter is not far behind. Its wrong and shouldn’t happen. It will happen though because its basic human nature and it will have a corrosive effect on unit performance, service morale and personnel retention.

Cultures can & do change, & they can be changed. Military personnel reflect the society from which they’re drawn, but they’re a subset of it, & there’s also a military subculture, which there’s strong pressure to conform to once you’re in. That culture has changed, & continues to change. This is an exercise in pushing that change a little further.

I’ve often seen you mention close ties with Japan in your contributions Swerve. Let me ask you whether women are allowed to crew JMSDF subs?. My understanding was that they were only allowed to deploy on surface ships 2 years ago and, comparitively, dual-gender crewing a surface ship is simplicity itself. Cultures can change and, I agree, do change, but, you cannot ignore the impact that culture has in this scenario. Just because something works for the Swedish, in the earlier example, doesnt mean it will for us.

But Jonesy, THERE WON’T BE ANY HOT BUNKING! Women are only going to serve on subs which don’t have it.

The RN has had time to get used to mixed crews on surface ships. They’re going to be introduced gradually on subs, officers first. The female junior officer I saw on the Beeb yesterday struck me as no-nonsense, keen as mustard & likely to have no trouble dealing with the environment. If there’s careful selection initially, starting with women like her, then I reckon by the time female junior rates start being considered for sub crews (I’d bet initially only where there are female officers aboard) then the male crewmen will be used to the idea.

Cultures can & do change, & they can be changed. Military personnel reflect the society from which they’re drawn, but they’re a subset of it, & there’s also a military subculture, which there’s strong pressure to conform to once you’re in. That culture has changed, & continues to change. This is an exercise in pushing that change a little further.

Well done is done,we shall see how it works out in a few years time.

To be honest I do have an issue with this. Hot bunking being what it is it does require a degree of intimacy with your crewmates that just is hard to find an analogy of in civvy street.

I dont accept the ‘well the Swedish can do it’ argument either. You cant wholly isolate a service from the culture its members grew up in. The environment on a Swedish sub may well reflect far more relaxed and, perhaps, more mature attitudes that nations culture has to the gender gap. British culture is not there yet though and may never be.

Is that a lamentable comment?. Yes, possibly, but the simple fact is that the primary concern is the operation of the boat and that must be in spite of any other consideration. Bringing in female crew members will add complexities with at least some crew members and that is the big concern. I have heard, anecdotally, that there are issues with recruitment for submarines at the moment, but, I think there have to be better ways to crew them through incentivisation than by trying this.

If you watch the news report Prom you will see the navy clearly stating that radiation is not and was not the reason/excuse given for not allowing woman. The reason given was carbon dioxide poisoning of the foetus, its a weak excuse frankly. If a woman gets pregnant she is off just the same as the surface fleet.

I know what they reported. I know what has been considered in the past.

Maybe they came up with a resolution to the radiation issue a few years back and CO2 was the last issue remaining.

:shrug:

As to taking off if pregnant, the issue is that she gets pregnant just before the mission starts, and is then on for 3 months without necessarily knowing. Also, being taken off is a lot more difficult, and in the case of the V boats may not be possible.

If you watch the news report Prom you will see the navy clearly stating that radiation is not and was not the reason/excuse given for not allowing woman. The reason given was carbon dioxide poisoning of the foetus, its a weak excuse frankly. If a woman gets pregnant she is off just the same as the surface fleet.

On of the biggest arguments against this is unique to SSNs & SSBNs so many of the international comparisons are irrelevant. That issue is that radiation could harm a foetus, and could make the RN liable. If however they insisted on pregnancy testing prior to deployment then this could infringe the woman’s civil liberties, so again the RN would be sued.

Even comparison with the USN for SSNs/SSBNs is somewhat irrelvant because of the different legal frameworks in the countries.

It is worth noting that even for the newer submarines, and in particular the Astute class which has no hot bunking, it was a limitation expressed in the user requirement that it was only required to have toilet and bathroom facilities for a single sex.

I do not know how they are planning to get around either of those issues, though I note that the current relaxation applies only to Vanguard and not Astute.

Just Curious, in the Western surface ships, do woman crew sharing same quarter, same bathroom with mans crew ? If they don’t, then the same partition arrangement has to be make available in the subs.

If that happen, then size of the subs will be increase just to clear for this arrangement. Well that’s a lot of cost just for sex equality. I know the arguments, that the Scandinavian already used unisex arrangements in their subs. But will the other western nation navy accept the unisex arrangements in their ships ?

Well I said Western nation, since non western nation Navy I believe will find it rather difficult to accept Unisex arrangement in their ships. Well for me, I don’t mind the Unisex arrangements, it’s rather refreshing if you have to stay for a month or more under a steel tube. It’s just like spring break all over again 😉

viewpoint

How many EX submariners have replied on this thread? Would be interesting to get thier viewpoint!!
Keeping your mind on the job with an attractive young lady next to you must be difficult ,especially for teenagers!!!

You know I don’t know.

Frankly I am slightly confused why Australia is having those problems. Just ensure the T&C’s plus pay are attractive enough to recruits. Or is it more of an issue with getting enough officers?

The manning problems were because the Submarines are all based on the west coast away from Australia’s main populations centres, which reduced the attractiveness of being in the submarine service.

In addition submariners (and other military personel) were apparrently targetted for recruitment by the large mining companies.

Last I heard the Navy had enough crews for the submarines they have, the issue now is that the government slowed down the refit rate (including reducing staffing at ASC) when there werent enough crews, so now they don’t have enough boats.

The health concerns are far less than the space concerns. The living space on Subs are far less spacious then on surface ships. On a vessel where people have to hot bunk because there isn’t enough room for all the crew, you don’t have the space to partition. Basically you have two options.
1) design new subs for gender partitions.
2) Create gender inequality in berthing conditions with the women having the senior enlsited/ junior officer staterooms and all the men relegated to the large bunkroom regardless of rank.
3) Just shove the women into the current berthings requiring them to shower and change with their mostly late teen-early 20s male counterparts.
4) Somehow do an all female crew.

AFAIK RN subs will start out with female officers, not ratings, though ratings will follow a couple of years later. Women will not serve on the old subs which still have hot bunking. They will be able to have their own showers & toilets, because the subs they’ll serve on have enough for that.

A little research, e.g. reading the press release, or the BBC article, would have told you all of that.

Why? There are lots of women on surface ships, & as already said, other countries manage it with smaller subs.

I don’t understand why anyone puts forward the “it will never work” argument about things which are already working.

If they are willing to accept shared accommodation, showers ect, then it shouldn’t be a problem. Doing physical things with other crew members is not permitted on subs or ships anyway, so I don’t see how it would be different with women on-board.

I think it would be a lot different. Looking into my crystal ball, I see a rash of
industrial tribunals in the future.

On a vessel where people have to hot bunk because there isn’t enough room for all the crew, you don’t have the space to partition. Basically you have two options.
1) design new subs for gender partitions.
2) Create gender inequality in berthing conditions with the women having the senior enlsited/ junior officer staterooms and all the men relegated to the large bunkroom regardless of rank.
3) Just shove the women into the current berthings requiring them to shower and change with their mostly late teen-early 20s male counterparts.
4) Somehow do an all female crew.

But as I have already said these excuses that have been trotted out over the years by the RN are rather weak when other navies have managed mixed crews with far smaller Diesel subs. Did the Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Spanish and Australian navies make significant habitation changes to their submarines to allow mixed crewing? I doubt it. So I call it out as a clear excuse rather then a valid argument.