US Navy redesigning its submarines to accomodate women

[XDurionX]

I don't think asking people to not get pregnant while deployed on a ship (which clearly violates fraternization rules) is some extremist position, but here we are.

The navy obviously thinks otherwise. Do you want to ban deployed males from having babies as well? If not, how is this not painstakingly sexist? Do you want to ban everyone in service from having sexual relationships? See how that will affect applicants. There are regulations in place to limit sexual relationships between service personnel, but as your posted article says: there was no evidence any such regulations were broken. I guess you know more than their superiors?

[Deleted]

I don't have to ask myself anything, because that's the submarine designers' job.

I see this line of thinking far more often than I'd like to on representatives of your political leanings

[endersblade]

I'm glad I served when I did.

A-fucking-men to that. Subs work because guys don't need a lot of space or privacy. Hot racking was a bitch, but it worked. Trying to pack fucking women into a sub too? Go fuck yourself, seriously. I'm all about EO and shit, but this is too much.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read the article before posting, or is this your hot take based off of a headline and your (apparently low) opinion of women?

Do you know the first thing about subs or are you just being an armchair general? I spent time on two different subs, I can tell you without a doubt this is a terrible idea, and it has nothing to do with being sexist. For a mod, you are pretty daft.

[Skroe]

So it's worth bringing up a sort of larger issue.

While the Columbia-class program is beginning now (actually a few years ago) for an around 2028 launch date, because building Ballistic Missile submarines is second only to Aircraft carriers in complexity and expense, there is a pretty significant chance that somewhere in these ships lifetime, probably around 2040 (around when the last batch of Columbia's are being built), persistent submarine drones will make the concept of at-sea deterrence functionally obsolete should a country (read: China) decide to invest in an expansive program.

[Wiyld]

Likely a short term issue anyway. I suspect subs are a high priority for automation..we know the navy is already testing automation for surface ships....likely work is going into subs as well.

Imagine autonomous nuclear plaforms that are nearly untrackable with the ability to stay active in the field almost forever.

[Skroe]

Likely a short term issue anyway. I suspect subs are a high priority for automation..we know the navy is already testing automation for surface ships....likely work is going into subs as well.

Imagine autonomous nuclear plaforms that are nearly untrackable with the ability to stay active in the field almost forever.

Probably the Virginia-class successor more than the Columbia class. The Columbia-class has an urgency to them because the Ohio's do have a 2030 expiration date (2026 for the Cruise Missile variants, which are being replaced with the Virginia's with more VLS tubes) on a rolling basis, and 2030 is not that far away when we're talking about a major ship building program for a first-in-class ship that hasn't had steel cut yet. The Columbia-class is one part enlarged Virgina, one part Ohio-tech, one part new stuff.

Virginia's will be built through the 2030s, but whatever the next class is, a 2030s program, will likely see some of that. That's notable in part because at the same time we'll be in the midst of a Large Surface Combatant program too (basically a Destroyer/Cruiser program) as to replace the Arleigh Burkes and whatever Ticondergia's are left, and those, like the Ford-class and the Zumwalt, will likely see a high degree of automation.

[Kellhound]

22 of 360 got pregnant during deployment. That's ~6% (there is no mention of the duration of deployment). Do you really think that's a huge difference to the same group of women aged 18+ on land in the same timeframe? Or women in the airforce or the army? Do you want to ban female soldiers from having babies? How is that not an infringement of human rights? The logic that women are not fit for a job because of a moderate risk of having babies is really medieval.

One, it isnt allowed. Two, that is 22 crewmembers that are basically useless for a portion of the cruise, shifting work onto others.

[Deleted]

One, it isnt allowed. Two, that is 22 crewmembers that are basically useless for a portion of the cruise, shifting work onto others.

22 crew that take up not just a spot and consume the resources of a single unit of crew but also take up undue-for-combat care that's reserved (rightfully so, in the case of less retarded pregnancies) for, or especially so pregnant women.

It's a bad bad proposition that's actually really well summed down by that bit I quoted from Mormolyce - "I don't need to think, that's the sub designer's job"!

[Kellhound]

Probably the Virginia-class successor more than the Columbia class. The Columbia-class has an urgency to them because the Ohio's do have a 2030 expiration date (2026 for the Cruise Missile variants, which are being replaced with the Virginia's with more VLS tubes) on a rolling basis, and 2030 is not that far away when we're talking about a major ship building program for a first-in-class ship that hasn't had steel cut yet. The Columbia-class is one part enlarged Virgina, one part Ohio-tech, one part new stuff.

Virginia's will be built through the 2030s, but whatever the next class is, a 2030s program, will likely see some of that. That's notable in part because at the same time we'll be in the midst of a Large Surface Combatant program too (basically a Destroyer/Cruiser program) as to replace the Arleigh Burkes and whatever Ticondergia's are left, and those, like the Ford-class and the Zumwalt, will likely see a high degree of automation.

Automation may be great for the bottom line, but it makes for a ship that is less likely to survive damage.

[XDurionX]

One, it isnt allowed. Two, that is 22 crewmembers that are basically useless for a portion of the cruise, shifting work onto others.

Again: there was no evidence any such regulations were broken. The very same article. You'd have a point if some of them were convicted of breaking the code (male or female), but there aren't any. Not a single one. And if there was, male and female should be held accountable by the same standards.

Tough shit, pregnant women can't work full time during late stages of pregnancy. That has to mean they're unfit for any job and should stay at home at all times to not jeopardize their position, right? That is pants on head retarded.

[Wiyld]

Automation may be great for the bottom line, but it makes for a ship that is less likely to survive damage.

Our military M O has always been about quantity before quality. That isnt to say we dont also produce some fantastic gear but when the chips are down we tend to overwhelm with numbers.

Sink one of our ships per day? We will put 2 in the water per day..take that uboats.

Now you automate them and remove the loss of human life and the choice is easy. Cost the other guy a thousand lives and ourselves 1 small autosub...what nation could sustain that.

Of course they wont be 100% auto cod a long time....but they will see dramatic decline in personnel as more functions go auto. Think skeleton crew for essential functions. The effect is still the same. Get rid of half the crew and accommodating men and women gets pretty easy. The space program can handle both becuase they have tiny crews.

[Kellhound]

Again: there was no evidence any such regulations were broken. The very same article. You'd have a point if some of them were convicted of breaking the code (male or female), but there aren't any. Not a single one. And if there was, male and female should be held accountable by the same standards.

Tough shit, pregnant women can't work full time during late stages of pregnancy. That has to mean they're unfit for any job and should stay at home at all times to not jeopardize their position, right? That is pants on head retarded.

Like the captain is going to admit he was banging an 18yo enlisted female

Having had to deal with a crewmember being rendered useless for over 6 months and having to pick up the slack (after her already being less useful because of her lack of upper body strength), I do not have any sympathy for them. We are talking about the military, not a cashier at Claire's.

- - - Updated - - -

Our military M O has always been about quantity before quality. That isnt to say we dont also produce some fantastic gear but when the chips are down we tend to overwhelm with numbers.

Sink one of our ships per day? We will put 2 in the water per day..take that uboats.

Now you automate them and remove the loss of human life and the choice is easy. Cost the other guy a thousand lives and ourselves 1 small autosub...what nation could sustain that.

Of course they wont be 100% auto cod a long time....but they will see dramatic decline in personnel as more functions go auto. Think skeleton crew for essential functions. The effect is still the same. Get rid of half the crew and accommodating men and women gets pretty easy. The space program can handle both becuase they have tiny crews.

Modern warships are not built in short order. Lose a carrier, it will take 4+ years to replace it. Destroyer? 1.5+ years. The days of building a ship in a few weeks are gone.

As crews get smaller, their ability to repair issues goes down, their ability to fight fires goes down, there ability to perform structural DC goes down.

[XDurionX]

Like the captain is going to admit he was banging an 18yo enlisted female

Having had to deal with a crewmember being rendered useless for over 6 months and having to pick up the slack (after her already being less useful because of her lack of upper body strength), I do not have any sympathy for them. We are talking about the military, not a cashier at Claire's.

So you're claiming the navy is corrupt? Got ya.

Excluding 50% of potential applicants for a role hurts way more than presumed inability to perform in a hypothetic situation. The navy is accustomed to that reality for decades now, maybe you should, too. The ones wanting to keep women out of the armed forces are often the same ones screaming "disposable male".

[Kellhound]

So you're claiming the navy is corrupt? Got ya.

Excluding 50% of potential applicants for a role hurts way more than presumed inability to perform in a hypothetic situation. The navy is accustomed to that reality for decades now, maybe you should, too. The ones wanting to keep women out of the armed forces are often the same ones screaming "disposable male".

When it comes to fraternization? Tends to be.

The Navy is accustomed to it by force not choice. The problem is not in allowing females to serve, it is in the lowering of standards and reverse discrimination that comes with it currently that negatively impacts the military's ability to perform at peak efficiency.

[satimy]

Wait weren't you for equality in the other thread? Now you're not?

Wouldn't equality mean you wouldn't change anything?

[Xirrohon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...rines-46885373

What other equipment should be redesigned? Do you think this redesign goes far enough?

but, but, but... I thought women were equal. Shouldnt women use the same design that men have been using for years?

[Wiyld]

Like the captain is going to admit he was banging an 18yo enlisted female

Having had to deal with a crewmember being rendered useless for over 6 months and having to pick up the slack (after her already being less useful because of her lack of upper body strength), I do not have any sympathy for them. We are talking about the military, not a cashier at Claire's.

- - - Updated - - -



Modern warships are not built in short order. Lose a carrier, it will take 4+ years to replace it. Destroyer? 1.5+ years. The days of building a ship in a few weeks are gone.

As crews get smaller, their ability to repair issues goes down, their ability to fight fires goes down, there ability to perform structural DC goes down.

Thats exactly the point...you allow your enemy to spend 4 years building a carrier and staffing it with thousands of sailors, and then you spend 3 months putting together a batch of relatively tiny autonomous drones and ruin his day.

This isnt a new idea...its happening literally everywhere...computers and robots are never going to go away...they will never get less capable. They will get better and cheaper. The trick is staying ahead of the other guy in making yours smarter, smaller and cheaper.

Wars of the future will be fought with fucking huge numbers of drones...cuz why not.



There is precident for this in naval warfare. Remeber what happened to the old big gun battleships? Remmeber the Yamato class ships? The Germans had those two super battleships too.....all of them were fucking monsters and all of them were useless. If i remmember right they were all sunk or put out of commision in tueir first entanglements. Remember how Pearly Harbor was not really a victory for Japan in the long run cuz rhey missed our carriers. The airplane was the first step in moving from big slow uber expensive ships with thousands of men to swarms of small cheap 1 man machines. Sure they require a huge carrier to operate...for now.. but automate the whole thing and there isnt any reason for the massive carrier anymore either.

[Yvaelle]

The sailors who have to constantly bend over to turn knobs and levers during their 8-12 hour shift will remember. They will remember it is because "mah equality."

Or maybe, since the valves will no longer be a brute force endeavor - a 12 hour shift won't feel like 12 hours lifting weights everyday - and they can be better rested, better prepared, and more focused on doing the right thing during a crisis, because they are less exhausted.

The story here is that relatively minor modifications to ship interior design would enable women to perform the functions that only short-but-beefy men can currently perform: this would more than double the available labour market for submariners. An increase in the available labour market would:
- improve the quality of submariner staff (select the best 3 of 10, vs select the best 3 of 20)
- reduce their salaries (more labour competition)
- improve morale (life on submarines is slightly less shitty)
- enable women on submarines

[shrunken]

Where does it happen? Don't they lack privacy on the sub?

Where there's a will, there's a way. And after a couple months underway, there's no shortage of will.

[Tennis]

Where there's a will, there's a way. And after a couple months underway, there's no shortage of will.

That's a shame. We're not animals. These people should know what they're signing up for and have self control.