I don’t know about subs but I have spent plenty of time in womens only dorm floors. I can’t imagine a female dorm sunk under water for months at a time. The constant cat fights would be bad enough but the “accidental” nuclear missile launches every 30 days or so would be horrible for the world.
(I kid but not really given the experience I have with a wife and two daughters).
There are no women serving on submarines (last I heard).
I happened to be aboard a sub that arranged to allow two women (NAVSEA types) to ride for a couple days at the end of this sea test. From what I heard, it took close to a year to get approval for these women to ride for just 2 days (one night). The women were given officers quarters, and they set aside a head just for them (keep in mind there aren’t THAT many toilets on a sub).
It was actually pretty fun - the captain went all out: allowed them to “drive”, fired a water slug (shooting a torpedo tube filled with water). The best was hearing over the com “engage the caterpillar drive” and hearing the response from the engine room, “caterpillar drive engaged, flux capacitor operating at 100%.” I was cracking up.
Submarines is a mans world. And should stay that way. I mean imagine being locked up in a tube with 30 menstrual women. I think thats against the Geneva Convention. must be
You are thinking the wrong way.
Imagine 30 women locked up in a tube under the ocean for at least 60 days with no men at all.
Of course, for safety there would have to be lots of security cameras, covering every aspect of the vessel
Someone is going to make a profit 
Si
Quick question: If the reason to keep women from submarines is the romantic problem, are gays screened out? Would one lesbian per sub be ok?
The NYTimes does April Fool jokes? That seems…unlikely.
Note that the article is hosted on subsim.com, not the NYT site. Also note that several of the embedded links to related NYT articles actually go to subsim.com.
If that doesn’t convince you, follow the link at the bottom of the page to the supposed BBC News article on the new Virginia-class sub to be named the ‘USS Princess Diana’, and note the date on that one.
Actually, submariner crews generally have lower radiation exposure than similar crew positions on surface ships. While I was in, I was part of the rad con group for my ship. Among other duties we tracked personnel exposure. Obviously the engineers working closest to the secondary shield, or those working in the RC, or on ‘hot spots’ would have the highest doses, and those would be above background levels. But the amount of cosmic radiation we were tracking was a fairly large portion of what we were measuring.
Because the at-sea fire party had to have durable dosimeters to allow them to enter radiation areas aboard ship, like the enginerooms, we tracked their exposure. But most of these guys never got into anything close to the reactors. And were getting higher doses, on average, than many of our regular engineroom watchstanders. The USN takes shielding on its reactors pretty seriously.
I had a couple of friends who were bubbleheads, and also in the rad con business. The monthly average dose they reported, was lower than the average we had. And for their non-nuke crew, it was substantially lower. Adding several hundred feet of water between a person and their cosmic ray exposure does have a measurable effect.
FTM, there is a significant radiation dose for transcontinental flights. (About 10 mREM per flight was the estimate I recall, but I may be wrong on that.) Which is about equal to the average monthly dose our engineering crew got working against the secondary shield. If low level ionizing radiation exposure is that much of a concern, we’d best stop allowing women to be stewardesses.
The concerns about fraternization are endemic to the Navy. I don’t know that they’re all that realistic. But that is a serious consideration of the powers-that-be. The radiation exposure just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile issue to be concerned about.
I’m pretty sure that the given objection to having a mixed crew is the complete and utter lack of personal privacy on a submarine - not even considering the possibilities for romantic entanglements (which probably would not happen due to the aforementioned lack of privacy).
Si
Oh…subsim.com. Got it. :smack: Sorry.
Former U.S. nuclear submarine officer here…
I expect the U.S. Navy will eventually put women on submarines. However, when it happens, it will be with a mixed crew, not an all-female crew, if for no other reason than safety. You need experienced people to train less-experienced people, and trained female submariners do not currently exist.
That being said, it would actually be easier to put women on subs than some other ship classes. Counter-intuitively, this is because of the tight quarters on board a submarine.
To explain this, for reasons that should be obvious, all Navy ships prohibit sexual relations between crewmembers while on-board ship. It is simply not conducive to good order and discipline. This has been a issue in the surface fleet, and sailors are routinely punished for violating this rule.
For a submarine, as opposed to large surface ships, there is simply no place for people to sneak off and pair up. In general, on a sub, you could stick your arm out, and you will hit somebody.
The other major problem, though, is privacy in berthing spaces and heads (restroom/showers). Howver, even my older submarine (Los Angeles-class) had separate berthing areas. There were two large berthing areas (50+ sailors), but there was also a 9-man and a 21-man berthing area. Also, the officer berthing areas were broken up into 3-man bunkrooms. If this didn’t work, you could always do what my old executive officer referred to as the $2.99 Walmart solution: simply cordon off a portion of a berthing area with a shower curtain. Each sailor’s bunk already is curtained off. So long as people put something decent on to get to the heads for bathing, you should be OK.
To add additional empirical evidence to back up some of the other posts, I wore a TLD radiation detector on my uniform at all times, whether I was in port, at sea, or home in my apartment. I always got more exposure when we were in port due to the higher background radiation off the boat.
P.S. I knew the April Fool’s article was B.S. as soon as I saw it, primarily because I had heard nothing about it before now. Also, the court case title made no sense (why would the State of Connecticut be a party?), the photo made no sense (why wasn’t the female in uniform?), and the quote near the end confirmed it. Also, the all-female crew did not ring true (see above).
Women are also banned from Royal Navy submarines - both nuclear and conventional - but the reasons given are pretty unclear. Radiation - but that can’t apply on conventional subs and as OtakuLoki says, unless something goes wrong they are actually lower than on the surface. Layout and privacy - there just isn’t suitable accomodation - but the RAN manage. One new one: any build up of carbon monoxide or dioxide (more likely in a sub) would effect the fetus if a female crew member turned out to be pregnant.
Actually the RN did a trial with a female officer on the nuclear boat (only for 8 days) back in 1998 and she had no problems. They apparently used robby’s Walmart solution - a curtained off area of the electronics department 
[Hijack] Interesting. Was that normal for the USN? Taking the badge home, that is.
I work on a nuclear site and our radiation workers are banned from taking their TLDs off site. When they do some idiot always manages to get it irradiated - whether by a dentist’s X ray or just leaving it next to some natural radiation source - and we have to waste effort proving they did not pick up an unplanned dose at work.
[/Hijack]
It takes most of a submarine crew to launch nuclear missiles from a ballistic-missile submarine. There are extremely elaborate procedures to verify valid launch orders, and the crew is not permitted to launch without a valid order.
You bring up a valid point. Regardless, every time I was issued a TLD, we kept it on our uniform belt at all times, on or off the boat/facility. If I was at home off duty, it was hanging on my belt in my closet.
When I went to a Navy dentist on base, they always reminded us to take off our TLD before getting an X-ray. Sailors were always reminded to not lie on the beach wearing their TLD. Sailors on leave (vacation) usually checked their TLDs back in, especially if they were leaving the area or flying.
Our doses were so low, usually, that it was never an issue.
The only difference I can think of for us compared to a civilian facility is that the Navy was responsible for us at all times, on or off duty.
Bummer… I was so looking forward to Das Booty.
I figured you’d be in here sooner or later. This line is what kept going through my head when I read the article–no way can you just poof an entire untrained crew into existence and send them on their merry way–especially the CO. What you said about it possibly being easier to integrate on a sub was very interesting… I would have thought it was the opposite. I dimly recall on my 30-day stint on an AOE that there was a quasi ‘women’s country’ set aside, and I didn’t see how that could be possible on a sub.
Yeah, but once their cycles synchronise, you’ll have the entire crew with PMS at the same time, and I bet there isn’t enough chocolate on a sub to pacify them all…
Si
I was aboard as US attack boat for a week long cruise as a civilian contractor and this is one the one thing that made the greatest impression on me. Unless you are in your (tiny) bunk with the curtain drawn, there is no place you can possibly be without being able to look about and seeing two or more pairs of eyes looking back at you. So it’s not the danger of intimacy the keeps women off of subs, it’s the fact that they are manned (heh) for the most part by teenage males who would be constantly entertaining the impossible notion of getting into the female poopy suits instead of focusing on their jobs.