Woman + Subs

[e6bflyer]

From my perspective, the girl on subs thing is largely driven by recruiting economics. Filling the billets on subs is already pretty difficult. You have a fairly stringent set of requirements for physical and mental health, security clearance, a very long and difficult training track for nukes, and THEN they have to volunteer. It takes them 2 years onboard to get fully qualified, and then you get 1.5 good years out of them before they are gone. Opening up that pipeline to a greater pool of applicants just makes sense. The vast majority of nuke officers get out after the first term. The Navy has to keep an endless stream of qualified applicants coming, and it is hard enough without sending lots of otherwise qualified applicants away.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the sub community, and while there is resistance, there is no real reason why it shouldn't happen. It will present new challenges wrt relationships onboard, pregnancies, etc, but those things can really be overcome without too much fuss. Lets face it, it is going to happen, people can either bitch about it and make it difficult or do their part to help make it easy.

 

[Spekkio]

Sub JO retention is higher than ever, and was above average when the new policy was announced. Kinda blows a hole in the manning theory.

 

[Hotdogs]

Sub JO retention is higher than ever, and was above average when the new policy was announced. Kinda blows a hole in the manning theory.

Well, considering they have a what 30k bonus? it would be sad if they didn't and don't act like they don't routinely draft dudes out of the boat school. Hell I think I even heard they have to draft dudes into interviewing the Nuke boss.

 

[Brett327]

Sub JO retention is higher than ever, and was above average when the new policy was announced. Kinda blows a hole in the manning theory.

NPC's manning outlook goes a bit beyond a year or two. In fact, some of the diversity initiatives are designed to address the demographic shifts in the US 20 and 30 years out for the purposes of manning/recruiting... but you knew that already, right Admiral?

 

[KBayDog]

NPC's manning outlook goes a bit beyond a year or two. In fact, some of the diversity initiatives are designed to address the demographic shifts in the US 20 and 30 years out for the purposes of manning/recruiting... but you knew that already, right Admiral?

So, Fleet Admiral Brett, "diversity" is an initiative? "Demographic shifts are "initiatives"?

This begs the question: At what point is it reasonable for us bottom-feeders to expect "The defense of our nation" to be an 'initiative'?

 

[Spekkio]

Well, considering they have a what 30k bonus? it would be sad if they didn't and don't act like they don't routinely draft dudes out of the boat school. Hell I think I even heard they have to draft dudes into interviewing the Nuke boss.

Bonuses aren't a good retention tool. People who stay typically do so because either they enjoy their jobs, or they don't feel like they have any other options. Throwing extra money at an O-3 or O-4 who, unless he made some really bad investments, isn't starving for cash isn't going to persuade a whole lot of people.

As far as drafts, don't kid yourself -- a few years from now when the economy turns, they'll be drafting women alongside the men. It wasn't like the competition was stiff for the current bunch; anyone with a vagina who raised her hand got the job. If they're still drafting people, it's because the percentages each community must be fed from USNA or each individual NROTC hasn't changed along with the increased NUPOC applicant pool, and not because the fleet is short of JOs/DHs. In fact, they are rotating DHs as early as 24 months (normally 32 months) if they have met their career wickets just to open more spots for the surplus of JOs who stayed in.

Females/males are now two different pools of applicants because of quotas, and as far as I can tell the women on submarines thing wasn't exactly a grassroots idea. There are plenty of feminist groups out there who protest about a lot of different things, but I haven't ever heard a peep throughout my 30 years of existence any gripes about women not being able to serve on submarines. As more slots for women start becoming available, you are eventually going to see a shortage of female sub volunteers, too.

NPC's manning outlook goes a bit beyond a year or two. In fact, some of the diversity initiatives are designed to address the demographic shifts in the US 20 and 30 years out for the purposes of manning/recruiting... but you knew that already, right Admiral?

Yes, I knew that manning is considered farther out than 2-3 years. But what I didn't know is that someone invented a crystal ball that could accurately predict that the sex of my generation's children will be mostly female, that military service will be a more desirable career choice for women in 20 years than it is today, that those women who elect to serve in the Navy will be busting down the door to serve on submarines, and that if we didn't act RIGHT NOW women would hit a glass ceiling of not being able to serve on a submarine.

Brett, I am interested in seeing the mathematical study you seem privy to that supports the notion that women will provide a long-term manning solution to the submarine force. I've heard the argument floated, but I've yet to see anyone produce numbers. It does seem very counter-intuitive to me, since very few women desire to volunteer for military service, even fewer desire to be submariners, and female retention is several times lower than male retention.

 

[Brett327]

So, Fleet Admiral Brett, "diversity" is an initiative? "Demographic shifts are "initiatives"?

This begs the question: At what point is it reasonable for us bottom-feeders to expect "The defense of our nation" to be an 'initiative'?

Wouldn't you agree that it makes sense for the Navy to take steps to appeal to the likely demographic makeup if it hopes to continue to recruit the best and brightest? If the military is perceived to be a good old boys intitution, it's not going to be seen as an appealing alternative to the private sector for certain ethnic groups. We've seen how demographic shifts can affect the outcome of elections. As women and minorities climb the social ladder 20-30 years into the future, the military will become increasingly reliant on being able to recruit them. Failure to recruit enough qualified people will definitely have an effect on our ability to "defend our nation."

That's the logic. Whether you agree with the methodology of how the diversity issue is address currently, that is one of the driving factors in why the military sees diversity as an important issue to tackle. Like you, I always thought it was PC pandering and social engineering, but as it turns out, there's a little more to it than that. This info was as briefed to me by NPC actual and the Force Master Chief.

 

[Brett327]

Brett, I am interested in seeing the mathematical study you seem privy to that supports the notion that women will provide a long-term manning solution to the submarine force.

I haven't made that argument - that was someone else.

 

[KBayDog]

Wouldn't you agree that it makes sense for the Navy to take steps to appeal to the likely demographic makeup if it hopes to continue to recruit the best and brightest?

As long as it recruits/retains the best and brightest, yes.

Whether or not DoN is actually doing that...or is simply pandering to the those who consider us a captive audience for their social experiments/brownie points from their constituents...is between you and "NPC-6A" and his CMC.

Fortunately, I'll be long gone by the time these effects are fully realized...and I'll ensure that my kids steer clear of any organization that promotes 'diversity' over performance (read into that what you will).

 

[Brett327]

The officer corps is going to be a lot browner and have more ovaries then it does now. It's a freight train barreling down on every aspect of our US culture. If that's an inconvenient truth for some of you, then maybe the grass will be greener for you in the private sector. Oh wait, they have even more aggressive diversity programs there! Well, I guess there's always that old song from M.A.S.H.

 

[MasterBates]

Giving everyone a fair shot is OK.

Promoting people (or not) based off of their skin color, be it by precepts, quotas or other means, is racism or sexism, regardless of who it is against.

Racism/sexism isn't something that's only done by white males.

 

[KBayDog]

How'd you hack into my ringtone?

BTW, does your post make you liable if I ever pull the trigger?

*Note: The above post is made completely in jest. Relax, everyone!

 

[jmcquate]

How'd you hack into my ringtone?

BTW, does your post make you liable if I ever pull the trigger?

*Note: The above post is made completely in jest. Relax, everyone!

Too messy........Black Capsule, that’s how Hitler did it.

 

[Jim123]

^^^ A very obtuse way to invoke Godwin's Law.



edit: crap, I misspelled it... warily looking around for the spelling nazis right now.

 

[Hotdogs]

Bonuses aren't a good retention tool. People who stay typically do so because either they enjoy their jobs, or they don't feel like they have any other options.

I'm not sure where your getting this from but the last ten years of conflict would probably disagree with this statement. However I'm not sure how much exposure a submariner would have to Army and Marine personnel issues. Signing bonuses and kickers also worked well too. That may be true for your skill set and MOS but for others not so much.

I don't have numbers on this...but something tells me that flashing anywhere from 30k to six figures tax-free in a mid-twenty year olds face worked pretty well for the DoD during the peak of the conflicts.