On 3 June 1999, when Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig raised the prospect of women in submarines at the Naval Submarine League Symposium, I was in the audience. A silent, unbelieving gasp seemed to hang on the announcement. Subsequent fallout in the press has been spirited. In September, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson and Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Admiral Frank Bowman both spoke out against the idea. On 20 September 1999, a policy statement was released: "The Navy's policy of not assigning women to submarines remains unchanged."
In 1995, Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) prepared a report for the Navy about women in submarines. It was not available to the public until just after the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) Conference, held in San Diego in October 1999. The SAIC report was comprehensive, and laid out many reasons why having women in submarines would not work. A key concern was that complications raised by women on board would undermine the operational effectiveness of the crew. Nevertheless, DACOWITS voted unanimously for a resolution recommending that plans for future submarines should make provisions for women.
I cannot think of any reasons why women should serve in U.S. submarines. Impediments are formidable and deserve widespread discussion. One of the most important impediments is the issue of pregnancy. Despite the fact that any ship at sea could be ordered into battle at any time, Navy policy allows a pregnant woman to serve on board surface ships until the 20th week of gestation—as long as she is less than six hours away from emergency medical care. In some cases (i.e., ruptured tubal pregnancy) even a one-hour delay could prove fatal.
First, a submarine is almost never within six hours of emergency medical care. Medical evacuation rates for women have been found to be two-and-a-half times that of men on surface ships, but pregnancy complications would be even more serious in submarines. Aborting a mission to make a flank-speed run of several days to an area where a woman in medical distress could be evacuated is a dangerous proposition. In any open-ocean area, evacuation would have to be done through the bridge hatch on top of the sail most of the time. (It would require a near flat calm to open any hatch on the main deck.) Hauling a woman up the bridge access trunk could be dangerous to her health—particularly if she were susceptible to hemorrhaging—only to face being snatched off the top of the sail by helicopter.
Second, during the past 25 years our attack submarines have been designed without enough bunks. Hot bunking is required on the Los Angeles (SSN-688)-class and the Seawolf (SSN-21)-class submarines, and even though hot bunking is not required on the Ohio (SSBN-726)-class ballistic missile submarines, temporary bunks are provided in the missile compartment for some non-rated men. Even the forthcoming Virginia (SSN-774)-class has 113 bunks for a crew of 134. The SAIC study concluded that providing privacy for women might not be possible without lengthening the ship. By crowding within the existing hull, some hardware required for combat operations would have to be removed. This could aggravate already substantial space and morale problems for the men.
Third, for the last 100 years our submarine force has been a close-knit community. Close contact between male and female crew members in confined spaces on board a submarine could have consequences that would degrade morale and readiness. Individual patrols can last as long as 70 days, and deployments can last six months. Civilian and military leaders must support policies that enhance morale and readiness. Placing women on submarines would be a terrible mistake and could destroy our submarine force.
We must lead by example, and not let this happen. I have contacted colleagues in France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, and confirmed that women are not allowed to serve in submarines in their navies. Women do serve in submarines in Sweden and Norway—in boats that rarely spend more than two weeks at a time at sea.
It would be unfair to burden a submarine's commanding officer with the unusual responsibilities and distractions that could hurt morale, combat effectiveness, and retention—especially if complications could result in abandoning a mission critical to national security. DACOWITS apparently has ignored the SAIC report and the views of senior Navy officers. I support Admiral Johnson's statement of 3 September 1999: "The submarine force has been looked at many times . . . . [All-male crews are] the right thing for us."
Mr. Boyle has had 32 years of submarine service in uniform and as a civil servant.
Women Should Not Serve in Submarines
By Richard Boyle