Maritime and National Security Blog

Left Hand, Right Hand

One is given pause when the Navy pushes dramatically before Congress and the media to place women on Submarines.  While the concern back at the ranch is that the Submarine Fleet will go well below the numbers needed to maintain the right power projection by 2030.  Certainly, the money to place women on submarines would not buy even one boat. The more interesting point is while the Navy wants to enhance the submarine force’s warfighting capability with women aboard (according to SECNAV, see post from 03-01-10); at the same time, keeping that warfighting capability at even the status quo is a problem.

 

Critics Worry over Attack Sub Force Plan

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/navy_sub_numbers_030110w/

 

Priorities

The Navy always seems to have timing and priority problems. Why didn’t the service push women in submarines a few years back?  It makes a lot more sense to drive a social agenda in times when it is more favorable to do so. Budgets were not as tight; the economy was not in a recession and the mood for women in combat was not a problem.  The right time would have been before the modification of the first four Ohio Class submarines into SSGNs.  The design could have easily incorporated women, cost would be a fraction of the overall budget for the conversion and the length of time in the yard would have provided ample time and opportunity for women to enter the pipeline and be ready to join the first SSGN crew with the appropriate PR splash.  Now is a poor time for this, money is tight and the service has a number of higher priorities.  One problem is that they just can’t say no to some things they should say no to and can’t seem to approve things they should approve.  Much of this simply distracts from the mission and shows a lack of leadership. The Navy’s leaders just can’t seem to make the right or the hard choices with any consistency.

 

Secretary Mabus stated that, “We think this is a great idea that will enhance our warfighting capabilities." Is he talking about the U. S. Submarine Force? Please Mr. Secretary call it what it is, expanding the role of women in the Navy, the submarine force works just fine and has for the last 110 years. Don’t insult the “Silent Service”. By all means, get the approval, then when you have money you don’t need to say, accomplish the planned shipbuilding numbers, spend that money to put women on submarines.

 

Right, this is hindsight of course, but problems with priorities and timing are not isolated occurrences, they are endemic.  For example:

 

The current deployment of the Littoral Combat Ship USS FREEDOM is early according to the Navy.  The schedule called for a deployment in 2012. There is both an operational and political consideration here.  Certainly as the CFFC Commander Admiral Harvey states, they do want to integrate the ship into the fleet, but also they need to prove the concept to Congress.  It is a great departure from how the Navy usually operates; each ship has the capability to conduct a wide variety of missions.  LCS will be capable of conducting only one, perhaps two, missions at a time with the installation of the applicable warfare capability.

 

The Crew of LCS numbers just 40.  The installed warfare modules will bring an additional 35 people, 75 total.  To make this concept work a lot of maintenance and other functions must move ashore, the at sea time will need to be reduced from legacy ships and the smaller crew will need to take on a greater burden across a number of warfare, operational and maintenance areas to make it all work.  This is a great formula for overwork a greater cognitive workload, stress, therefore fatigue, therefore reduced performance, etc. etc.  A line from the movie Ben Hur comes to mind.

 

“You are all condemned men, we keep you alive to serve this ship, row well and live”

 

As much as the Navy seeks social progress, it is slow to adopt policies and procedures that will ensure the continued readiness of the Navy as a fighting force that would not necessarily need to fight, but if it did there would be no problem with performance or endurance.  The United States Coast Guard has figured this out.  Just like the Navy the Coast Guard is in high demand, performing fatiguing duties even more often than her sister service.  The Coast Guard, however, recognizes the utility of understanding and mitigating fatigue.  They call their program the Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) and they put a lot of basic research behind this effort. The Navy has a great opportunity to study the first few LCS ships and the new manning model.  A proper study will provide useful data that will influence decisions for the entire class.  You don’t want to screw up an entire 55 ship class and you don’t want to continue with the mantra of the crew enduring and managing like the folks in Ben Hur.

 

LCS to Deploy Early

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=48930

 

LCS Crew Manning

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/FAQ_JHSV_vs_LCS.htm

 

U. S. Coast Guard Crew Endurance Management System

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5211/docs/CEM_The_System_PRESS.pdf

 

Navy to Build 55 LCS

http://www.news.navy.mil/navco/speeches/2009/SECNAV-SNA_15Jan09.pdf

 

Mabus and Women in Submarines

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51571

 

Priorities

The Secretary of the Navy announced women would soon serve on submarines. Why?  What is the problem SecNav is trying to correct? Is it because it is the next to the last bastion of all male service, or has the submarine force not been an effective part of the naval arsenal these last 109 years?

The CNO’s Guidance for 2010 does not mention the integration of women into the submarine force.  This document should provide an operational and execution plan based on relevant strategy documents. It should be specific and alert the chain of command to the direction for operations, acquisition and the establishment and execution of policy. Women in submarines may have been a topic of discussion within the upper reaches of Navy leadership, as they stated, but they were not ready to move out on the issue.  No, this is a project given to them from the civilian leadership and they are going along. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs expressed it initially during his confirmation hearing 15 September 2009.

“As an advocate for improving the diversity of our force, I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines (Mullen, 2009, Advance Questions).”

Most of the arguments against this plan go to the capabilities and frailties of women and the nature of life aboard a submarine.  The resolution of these issues is generally a matter of time, resources, logistics, training and discipline.  Some are not issues at all. Women serve as men do, with quality spread across the spectrum and those selected would serve similarly in submarines.  There was one argument made, about air quality and its effect on a woman with an undetected pregnancy - that was new, but mostly the arguments were old.

Secretary Mabus, the CNO and especially Admiral Mullen miss the point.  The opportunities for women cover probably 92 percent of the Navy and women are taking advantage of those opportunities – with great success. It is not a matter of if, but when, women will serve on submarines. When they do, it will probably be only ballistic missile boats for the near future.  The point is timing.  You can make an argument that there is no time like the present, but is that valid?  Placing women on submarines will require time and resources that would be better used in areas that are not functioning well – submarines are doing just fine.  It would be a wise move to fix some long-standing problems first; this will lead to a smoother transition of women into submarines.  It is better to approach the problem this way rather than create a new problem just for the sake of diversity and the ego of Navy leadership.  This blog will always endeavor to provide answers, not just criticism.  Therefore, the following would easily make a list of challenges for the Secretary of the Navy to complete, all more important than integrating women into submarines…fix these first.

1. Fix the acquisition system
2. Develop a naval strategy that will clearly drive weapons development, operations and acquisition
3. Smooth out the wild cycles of the advancement system
4. Develop better leaders
5. Develop reduced shipboard maintenance to accompany reduced manning
6. Ensure Sailors support their families
7. Eliminate sexual assault and domestic violence
8. Develop a personnel structure for the 21^st century
9. Stop wasting time and resources on stuff that does not improve the fighting ability of the Navy

10. Improve Fleet maintenance, reinvigorate the Board of Inspection and Survey and swing the inspection pendulum back just a bit

11. Make the Inspector General a 4 star with a 4 year term

12. Require all Sailors – including officers – to conform to Navy physical readiness standards

Mr. Secretary, if you were to resolve these dozen (these are the first to come to mind) items during your term you would rank with our best SecNavs.  These are more important than placing women on submarines and they deserve that level of attention.  Develop a plan Mr. Secretary, populate and prioritize it with these and other issues and work your way down. You will get to the women in subs issue and the Navy will be a better service when you finally reach that issue.

References:

CNO Guidance 2010

www.navy.mil/features/CNOG%202010.pdf

Scruto, Andrew and Faram, Mark, How, Where and When Female Sailors Would Join the Silent Service, Navy Times, 12 October 09

 

Mullen Testimony –

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2009/09%20September/09-61%20-%209-15-09.pdf

 

Mullen Advance Questions

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2009/September/Mullen%2009-15-09.pdf