Home » On War » Operation Petticoat: Full Steam Ahead

Operation Petticoat: Full Steam Ahead

By Jamie McIntyre Friday, September 25th, 2009 10:49 am
Posted in On War

Ready or not, here they come. Women will soon be serving on U.S. Navy submarines, it’s just a matter of how soon.

[YouTube: Operation Petticoat, 1959 Cary Grant, Tony Curtis]

In case you are not good at reading between the lines of the Navy’s statements yesterday, here’s a translation:

From Navy Secretary Ray Mabus (pron MAY-bus): “We are moving out aggressively on this. I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines.”

Translation: “On the civilian side, we’ve already decided to do this, and we civilians are in charge.”

From the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead: “There are some particular issues with integrating women into the submarine force… Accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable.”

Translation: “Aye-aye, sir, but this is gonna take a little time to work out.”

Now, in fairness, the Navy has been looking at this issue for some time, and Adm. Roughead says, and his staff insists, that he’s fully on board. This is NOT something that is being shoved down the throat of reluctant commanders. But working out the logistics of adding women to the cramped confines of a submarine will take some doing.

I spent time at sea on a Los Angeles class attack submarine, the USS Montpelier, and I know how small the spaces are. The hotbunking sailors, who are assigned two to a rack, like to sleep in the torpedo room when they can, just to be able to stretch out.

But the military has a long history of pointing out why things can’t be done, only to discover when push comes to shove they can.

Back in the 1990s, then Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak was a vocal opponent of putting women in the cockpit of fighter planes, but saluted smartly when Les Aspin lifted the ban on female combat pilots in 1993. At the time Gen. McPeak quipped, “There’s always a small chance I was wrong.”

History shows, he was.

The Navy will go slow on this, starting with officers on the big subs - the “boomers” [Ballistic Missile Submarines] — but eventually they will have to open the smaller Los Angeles attack subs to women, too, and include junior sailors.

For women sailors this is a huge step, because for a newly-minted nuclear engineer right out of Annapolis, the nuclear navy is a path to the top. And the surface nuclear fleet is shrinking, while the submaine service is not.

This decision by the Obama Administration makes its just that much more likely that one day in the future, sailors will be saluting a female CNO.

Here are the full statements of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead

“This is something the CNO and I have been working on since I came into office. We are moving out aggressively on this. I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines.“
Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, September 24, 2009

“Having commanded a mixed gender surface combatant, I am very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force. I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews.
The Navy has examined the feasibility of assigning women to submarines over the years, and I have been personally engaged on this.
There are some particular issues with integrating women into the submarine force; issues we must work through in order to achieve what is best for the Navy and our submarine force.
Accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable. We must manage the community as a whole, such as force growth and retention within a small warfare community. The size of the submarine force is much smaller than the surface and aviation forces and personnel management is more exacting.
This has had and will continue to have my personal attention as we work toward increasing the diversity of our Navy afloat and ashore.“
Adm. Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, September 24, 2009

« « Jamie on Gen. McCrystal’s Leaked Strategy | Obama Wavering? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	STS/SS LENNY September 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm As a former submariner I could see this working out with quite a bit of conflicts on the trident boats but not on the 688’s I have no knowledge of life on the seawolf pier queens or the virginias but assume they’d be very simular to the 688’s. On tridents just having female riders was a royal P.I.T.A. but worse case scenario turn the second level gheto into female berthing and add a femal head over the crews lounge.
	ronnie pond September 26th, 2009 at 3:28 pm What will it be like birthing males and females on a close quarter confinement sub. I do realize that subs are not like the world war 1and 2 sweat box (Pig Boats)As they were back then. But they are still not Luxuries cruise liners either. And I wonder how many females will get Pregnant.And I do know that all service men are not little angels are big brothers. So when the dirty jokes and the close Quarter Farts are going left and right. I wonder what the out come will be. I just imagine that a lot of the old Submariners will get out are retire???.
	Curt Kastens September 26th, 2009 at 9:00 pm Just saw this program on German TV about times that the cold war came within a hair of world destruction. Here is a story from the program that I had never heard before and I bet that you haven’t heard it either. During the Cuban Missile Crisis and US destroyer dropped depth charges near a Soviet submarine. The story was not clear if it was an attempt to sink the sub or to be a warning. Well the Soviet sub Captain was sure that it was an attempt to sink the sub and that war had broken out. He ordered the torpedo crew to arm a torpedo with a 30KT warhead and fire it at the American fleet. The Russian Officer In Charge of the torpedo room refused his orders. Damn I wish that I could personally thank that Russian officer who refused his orders. He saved the life of my whole family and me. He alone had done more for me than all the members of the US military and all the money spent on that military of the last 60 years. Of course the phony patriots of the VFW and the American Legion are going to not want to admit the obvious truth of that statement. If they ever see it they will make all kinds of charges but all of these charges will be smoke and mirrors. In honor of Marina Raskova 1912–1943
	YN1LEE September 26th, 2009 at 8:34 pm yn1(ss) lee: So how would you do female medical issues, doc’s office was a broom closet on most 688’s, and what do you do with the tampons and feminine napkins? They can’t simply be flushed down the toilet, unlike on surface ships, sanitaries on new 688’s are pumped overboard, or still blown out to sea. Do you close off the 9 man berthing and make it a female berthing (9 out of 150?). I wouldn’t mind the change in scenery, but americans just have a different view on sexuality and living with each other.
	STS/SS LENNY September 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am if the general public knew howmany times it has come close to anialation through out the course of history most people wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
	Georgia Sadler September 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pm Heard you on WTOP in Washington DC morning (9/27/09) talking about women on subs. You said that you didn’t think any other countries had women assigned to subs, but that is not correct. Norway and Sweden have had women on subs for almost 20 years. The argument was made that that was okay because they didn’t go on long cruises so it was easier to accommodate the women. The Australians have had women on subs for a number of years, with an average of 30 — 40 women out of a crew of 200 and at least one of those mixed gender subs made a cruise from Australia to Hawaii. Meanwhile, the Canadians have designed their new subs based on having mixed gender crews . Georgia Sadler, Captain, U.S. Navy (Ret)
	brand September 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm I don’t think that women should be on the subs, I dont think they should be on the ships with our husbands either. Think about it: what type of woman wants to be in the military in the first place? One or two women– lesbians that look like men, or females that specifically prey on the vunerablitiy of our husbands when they are away for such a long time. These women have no integrety and tear apart our families.
	OIFVet@USC September 27th, 2009 at 10:40 pm Is this what we as a nation have finally come to? The Army, Air Force, and the surface component of the Navy already cowed to the demands of leftist politicians, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and non-veteran activist organizations. Next will be the Submarine Service, combat elements of the Marines, Navy SEALS, and Army special forces and combat arms MOSs. I have great respect for our female warriors. We can’t win wars without them, but they have there place. Like men, women are all too willing to be placed in harm’s way and risk maiming, permanent disfigurement, and death. I know, because in addition to serving in submarines, I served in the Iraq War, and I saw women endure death and disfigurement there and it was a national disgrace. As a result, history will be justly harsh to our country and history will judge us as a society by the way we view our women in war. The submarine community and level headed members of the military community, and their friends and families need to notify the Navy and the Congress and let their voices be heard now before further precedence is set and this insanity continues.
	OIFVet@USC September 28th, 2009 at 12:30 am In the early 90s, the Clinton Administration failed to get the commandant of the Marine Corps to go the way of the other services on the subject of combat duty for women. The Marines adopted the “Marine model” that both “defines and differentiates” the roles of men and women in the Marines. Like male Marines, female Marines are trained to fight, they are armed to fight, and if necessary, they are prepared to fight. However, in the Marine model, and as a matter of Marine Corps policy, female warriors are not sent into combat. The Marines are the only branch of the service that practices that very successful concept. Admiral Mullen’s own Marines have already solved the problem of women going into combat. Perhaps the admiral and the secretary of the Navy ought to stop dancing to the tune of the liberal activists in the White House, the mainstream media, and Hollywood, and follow the lead of his Marines. In the meantime, the concept of women serving aboard submarines is not popular with the submarine community, nor is it popular with the American people by a margin of 3:1 according to the Mil.com poll and like polls in the news.
	Curt Kastens September 28th, 2009 at 1:05 pm If you think that our country will be judged harshly by history for allowing women in to combat you should see how it will judge America for allowing 18 years old children to enlist the the military and sending them in to combat not long after that! The reason should be clear to those who are field grade officer and higher. Turning 18 is to adulthood what being conceived is to being human. I imagine when some people under 20 read that they will be miffed. But the fact of the matter is that young people are selected for the slaughter and to slaughter because they are easy to manipulate. Unfortunately too many young people will never get that warning. An equally bad disgrace is allowing ROTC programs in High Schools. Children can learn enough self discipline by joining the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. ROTC in the high schools , including DOD Schools, is a totally unnecessary glorification of militarism. Now some 70 year old geezer who still runs 100 miles in 6 hours across Death Valley every July will probably write in to say how mature he was when he was 18 or 19. All I can say is man you are so old you do not even remember how stupid you were when you were 18. If you disagree with that assessment all I can say is that you have not learned anything important in the last 50 plus years. When I cross the Death Valley I take a car.
	Curt Kastens September 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pm By the way, it is a tough call but I am opposed to females being assigned to naval vessels. But more importantly I am more or less opposed to naval vessels. Coast Guard good. All Republics should have a coast guard. Navies, Navies bad, big navies very very bad. Only evil empires, and there are no other kind, need navies. Navies send stupid young people far far away for a very long time, far far from their children on the false story that they are protecting their children. Children of sailors hurt, wifes too, all for nothing really. Well maybe cause some thrill seekers enjoy playing top gun. Of course their is no known link between sailors and prostitution so they can be cleared out of that mess.
	OIFVet@USC September 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm Kurt, your contempt for a standing naval force as part of the maritime defense for our …“very maritime”… nation is interesting. Too, the travesty of young men fighting and dying in war is an unfortunate reality that has spanned all of time. Women were recently added to the equation. Now, we are proposing the madness of sending our own daughters, mothers, and wives into harm’s way to engage the enemy in perhaps the most horrific form of all battle; that of undersea warfare. This is ultimately not about equal rights or promotional opportunities for women as suggested by the supporters of this scheme. It is all about mission success and victory in war. The Submarine Service is the cornerstone and determining factor in America’s maritime strategy in any future war with a determined and technologically capable enemy. This is no time for experimentation and trying to make something work that was never meant to be, at the expense of the lives of young men and women, and the furtherance of the post military careers of a hand full of Navy brass. You may want to write or email every congressman you can and blast the SECNAV and CNO for good measure.
	OIFVet@USC September 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pm Curt, my apologies for misspelling your name.
	Curt Kastens September 29th, 2009 at 3:55 pm To many things going on write now and to much in put coming in. Maybe I can get back with you but it mite be on another thread.
	NuclearWife September 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm Seriously… 1-If they are lesbians what business is that of yours? I know lesbians who are very butch, and I know others who are very fem. One of the most girly lesbians I have ever met lived in my apartment building and was a former Marine. 2-Prey on your husbands vunerablilty really? Where does personal responsibility and trust come in? If a husband cheats while he is at sea that is HIS fault, he is the one cheating, likewise if a wife cheats while her husband is at sea it is HER fault. 3-Did it ever occour to you that a straight female might just want to serve her country and was attracted to the Navy over another military branch the same way a man would be? While I personally feel that I am serving my country enough by my husbands service if I were to enlist I would chose the Navy since it gives me the same opportunity to see the world with less exposure to battle.
	ProudVet September 30th, 2009 at 12:46 am What type of woman wants to be in the military in the first place? A straight woman who has been taught by example that service to God and country are the most honorable of professions. For 20 years I served proudly, honorably, and with integrity. I am saddened that your marriage is so fragile that you feel it could not survive lest your husband was artificially isolated from temptation.
	Cheryl October 1st, 2009 at 9:01 am brand, Obviously a military wife, or ex wife of a scoundrel. As a member of the military ( and neither a lesbian or a predator.) I and a wife and mother, I think it is an excellent opportunity, and better late than never.
	(Re)Tired COB October 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am This is a huge can of worms. I have had the opportunity to serve my country as a Chief of the Boat, Command Master Chief (including two aircraft carriers, one of them mixed gender), and Force Master Chief . I can tell you from first hand experience that this is a bad idea that will eventually give the Submarine Force a black eye.
	Thomas Andrews October 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm I spent the majority of 22yrs. on subs and have delt with a female rider onboard from a shipyard and have seen first hand how well that worked,it didn;t she forgot to turn the sign around on the head and was walked in on by one of her own shipyard workers not just once but a few times.Woman on board would be good only if the had their own sub fully manned by females.This is a great way to get a lot of sexual harrassment charges going,as the COB STATED IT’S A CAN OF WORMS.MS1[SS]RET.
	Marguerite Powell October 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm I beg to differ with you. I am a mother of a Senior Chief in the Navy and she is not lesbian and is a very feminine looking young lady and extremely patriotic and is not in the Navy to go after anybody’s husband. She is married to a beautiful man, is on board a ship and is serving her country like any other man would. The type of women that serve in the military are proud and determined to make our country a better place to be in. My hat to all the brave women. Oh BTW I also am married to a retired Chief (26 years of service) our son serves in the Air Force and our grand daughter serves in the AF. So, don’t mess with me.
	@seo415 October 1st, 2009 at 10:34 pm Women in subs — tight confines, long deployments — how different is it from women in combat land units?
	HMCM(SS/PJ/FMF) October 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am WOW!!! I was wondering when the liberal “yeah sayers” would cower down to the pressures of “equality” and put grease on the squeeky wheels of stupidity. I am a retired Master Chief Hospital Corpsman who served in the submarine service and I can tell you first hand the thought of females on any submarine is an absolute moronic idea. An earlier comment from a YN1(SS) mentioned the Doc’s office size and issues with feminine hygiene products going into the sanitary tanks. True…but my biggest concern is the medical welfare of the crew. I’ve had to sit on medical emergencies for several days before I could get them off the boat during patrols, and when you’re the only medical person onboard, you’re praying for a miracle that you’ve done everything right and the guy don’t die. The male anatomy is pretty straight forward, therefore diagnosis and treatment is fairly uncomplicated. Females are far more difficult to manage, especially when you complicate the problem with the potential for pregnancy. There’s alot of things that can go wrong in hteir abdominal area which can be fatal in a matter of hours, not to mention days before you can medevac them to a treatment facility. The Submarine Corpsman is a “One-Man-Show”, he is the hospital in a broom closet. Someone in Washington needs to get off their high horse and get a backbone about the facts of submarine life. I have alot of friends who ride surface ships, but from a medical standpoint, it’s a whole different world below the surface, and it’s not just about tradition, it’s about the facts surrounding the submarine environment. Opportunities for career minded females are out there in the Navy, but we need to draw the line somewhere and stop making foolish decisions based on ignorant politician’s and senior military officials bucking for promotion who haven’t got a clue to reality.
	counselor October 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm Here we go again, another floating bordello. Temptations are great on ships where Men can’t seem to keep their ***** in their pants and women can’t seem to keep their legs closed. You sincerely hope for Professional behavior, but alas, not so, deviant behavior is rampant among all sexual preferences, just like in the civilian communities. Next, just like today, more out of wed births, lots of single parents, parenting issues, etc, all new problems for the military to handle, we are suppose to fight wars. What are the ODDS!
	Onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm I think you are a freakin’ idiot. Your statements are some of the most ridiculous, UNEDUCATED, moronic statements I have read on this subject. You need to go live somewhere OTHER than the USA, because obviously, you don’t belong here…
	Onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm Wone should not be allowed to become the subject of “National Disgrace” and the PUBLIC needs to grow up…there is no difference, in my eyes, of a woman being drawn and quartered by the radical enemy than a man… are women so “special”. I, personally, believe that if a woman CAN, without any lessening of standards, pass BUDS, or ARMY SPECFOR, then by god they should be able to do it. HISTORY does not dictate the future of the Human Race. How we respond to changes, and adapt to those changes will write the History to come. Get over yourself. I, for one, am all for it, and as a former VET myself, I don’t see ANYTHING wrong with it… as long as they EARN it.
	Onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm WHAT THE EFF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
	onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm That was meant for the first chickie that was all worried above..by the way
	onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm You are one seriously misguided, and probably INSECURE woman with no self-esteem. You need to get yourself FIT and in better shape, eat healthier foods and ROCK your man’s world when he gets back…and maybe, just maybe, you won’t fall prey to your secret, dark fears that you are allowing to sabatoge your marriage. Women soldier’s/sailors are hot, MY WIFE is a Soldier… and I support her and do what I can to PROVE that I am the man that she can count on. Obviously, you are NOT that woman…or you don’t think you are. Give yourself a chance…and lay off with the badmouthing of female soldiers. Remember, if you can’t beat them..you can always JOIN them.
	onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm Bravo Ms. Powell! BRAVO!!!
	onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm .…and THOSE Americans need to get over themselves. Where there is a will there is a way. And you DO mind, speak it, and don’t contradict yourself. It has nothing to do with a change of scenery…everything to do with the Evolution of War.…
	onewhoknows October 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm what makes you say that? Who CARES what you wonder… have you EVER been in close quarters with a woman who has nasty farts? She would be the HERO of the boat! Pregnant? There will be those MEN and WOMEN who will break the rules…there already ARE and there ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. And you are right about one thing: Not all men are Angels “OR” big brothers… and those men are not “MEN” at all, they are cowards. And REAL MEN will be aboard those boats, and WILL be Angels and Big Brothers. You make it sound like the entire ship will gang rape the women. You’d be surprised at the tenacity and professionalism of women soldiers. I Think your opinions are misguided, uninformed and at best, based on fear. You “men” posting here…really disappoint me.
	thomas andrews October 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm yes young lady your right not all men are good men and on the same hand nor are all women good women but to be on a submarine is not the place to find out.Everyone should try to come up with suggestions to solve the problem not complain about gender or name calling.Iv’e been on both and agree that it could be very much a problem for both sides especially the commanding officer and cob.Subs are to close quartered and attitudes happen along with rudeness[no manners] but it seems women can be that way to.why not put women on their own boat,it’s a idea without a whole lot of problems about gender.
	sailorphil October 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pm without a navy this country would be under some other countrys rule,but maybe that what you want.
	sailorphil October 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm C.O.B I was on the Sandlance.Batfish An the Bluefish (TAD) and I could not agree with you more.
	Biggs October 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm Amen! I’m not sure i could have done my job effectively if I was watching Women getting torn up. Fireteams get tight and are extreamly protective of each other as is, could we be an effective fighting force if we spend all our time worrying about the people “We joined to keep out of harms way” When we’re dragging them along for the ride? I’, glad i’m out.
	sailorphil October 7th, 2009 at 2:15 pm Anyone who thinks women should be on a subs should be asigned to one first,An not just for a few days, but for a med cruies an a ors drill,lets drag some fire hoses from the TM room to ENG room with a eab on,Then lets talk.It not just male an female on a sub but the responceabity that come with it ‚It one life depending on another ‚an being able to respond to any casulity. I have been their an I would not want to do that.Their is a place for everone an subs are not it.
	JEA October 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm Do you realy think women or that much different tan men. Some will be faithfull and the other will be after each other. Both men and women have a sexual drive. Some women with service just as well as men. Some men want serve as well as women. Not every one is the same. It will depend on the individual.
	JEA October 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm Women have served along side men since the begin of time. Some women will have what it takes and some men want have what it takes
	RM2(SS/DV/PJ) October 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm Having served on two Fast Boats and one Boomer, I think this has the potential for disaster if it’s not conducted correctly. While it’s true that there’s no job on board a boat that a female cannot do, is she able/willing to become a crewmember and not just a “female crewmember?” She will have to have as thick scin as the next male to be accepted as a shipmate; espicially as a NUB/FLOB (Non-Useful Body/Free Loading Oxygen Breather for all you non submariners). And God help her if she decides to pull the “I’m a female card so I can’t lift that or do that.” Is she willing to go without a shower for a week or two, no clean clothes and subsequently deal with all the body odor of 130–150 people? It’s not pleasant. If not, she’ll never survive and only segregate herself from her crew. And that’s not a wise decision. It’s not like a “normal” job where you can be a loner and go home at the end of your day.
	RM2(SS/DV/PJ) October 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm I agree with sailorphil 100%. Anyone who thinks females should be on the boats should have served on them first. Life onboard a boat is unlike anything else. Non submariners think they understand but truly they cannot. I have always agreed that women should be able to serve where men do with only one condition. The training and status quo should not change just to meet the needs of the females. That only lessens what the males have had to endure and breeds animosity between the sexes.
	SEAL76 October 7th, 2009 at 8:35 pm Asking for trouble is what this is. The Navy already has problems with pregnancies on board regular ships where quarters are not as close. I am a former SEAL and would not want a female in SEAL Team because of the friction and the damage stupid male competition would cause to the operational integrity of the platoons and squadrons.
	MM1/SS October 7th, 2009 at 9:15 pm I must agree with RM2 and sailorphil… can’t say what life on a boomer is like, but I served on a fast boat and there is only one way I believe that this would not be completely foolish. 100% female crew… but then who’d train them? Who’d qualify them? Just some places male and female need to be segregated.
	Robert Kintner October 8th, 2009 at 3:51 am There was a woman captain in charge of RTC when I got out after 10 years due to Clinton totally screwing up the military. I was a sonar tech on subs and there is no way in hell that it will work. That woman in charge of RTC had NEVER BEEN TO SEA yet she gave the recruits blue’s cards, made it to where we got in trouble for making them exercise for punishment, road guards were told they didnt have to run. Kinder gentler my ass. Women have ruined the Navy. Oh yeah, recruits coming out of Great Lakes actually called a training time out during a real casualty. That happens on subs and you and others die. STS2/SS
	Denny October 8th, 2009 at 4:25 pm If you ever served on a Boat, Then you’ll know where this is going! The New Navy will surely be the downfall of the Silent Service. I took pride in serveing my country knowing what I was giving up on those long Cold War missions. It is surely Not My Navy anymore, So I can Safely repeat what was said by my Old Chief back in the Day, “Not In My Navy”. I do hope & pray for the Service of all of those who decide to commence on this journey in the future. Witout the Boats, We are not a Safe Powerful Country!!!
	FTG1(SS) October 12th, 2009 at 2:46 pm I have no doubt that women could do the same jobs as men could do on a boat, But as a former submariner I have to agree with a poll a saw that this is a recipe for disaster. 3 months under water in close proximity, well I don’t have tell you what happens to both men and women after 3 months of no with the outside world. Some might say this would be good for morale, but I believe it would have the opposite affect. An all women sub would probably be okay, but then you may have competition between the all male and all female subs. I say if it works don’t mess with it.
	Thunderhorse19 October 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm The faster the Navy puts women on the subs, the faster the Navy will get rid of the ‘over 30′ crowd, the ones who’ve been in the Navy longer than 30 years. Nothing but racist, dead wood, Admirals included. Drennan and Williams, and their cabal should have been retired 10 years ago. Then the Navy will have a free hand to work on their pedophile problem with the Navy chiefs at Kitsap.
	Jack October 12th, 2009 at 8:14 pm The problem with creating an all female crew is that you lose all the experience that a normal crew would have. Some of these submarine officers and senior enlisted have been on submarine deployments since the Cold War. Losing all those years of experience would mean losing mission readiness and fleet capability. Do you think the higher ups would want to risk losing a $2 billion submarine and 120 crewmen due to inexperience and its resulting incompetence?