Leaderboard

It is with heavy heart I share with you the passing of a fellow USAF Veteran, Ed Rasimus. Ed was a fighter pilot with two tours in Southeast Asia (F-105D Rolling Thunder & F-4E Linebacker I & II), an educator, and a terrific writer, and at least since 1996 I've been proud to call him a friend. “So here’s a nickel on the grass to you, my friend, and your spirit, enthusiasm, sacrifice and courage - but most of all to your friendship. Yours is a dying breed and when you are gone, the world will be a lesser place.” Going to miss you, Ed. Somewhere an F-105 taxied out of chocks today, not headed for Route Package VI, but just cleared for an unlimited climb on departure...

Called it! Damn I'm good!

Nice fable, but that's not how humans work. You ever heard of a tragedy of the commons? Such are the motivations of the aggregate AF pilot pool. Most people join up cuz they want to be pylets. In the process of living their lives, complications to their life situation in the form of financial obligations and expanding list of dependents, their priorities naturally shift. That's hardly a reason to pursue leadership positions for the sake of a paycheck, but there you have it. The idea that people are gonna sack up in an honest way and change the way they are inherently motivated is pure fallacy. They all wait for someone else to take the grenade, leading to no one taking the hit, and all ending up worse off. Tragedy of the commons. Punking everyone to bid for 'up or out' has done jack to improve that dynamic of rational motivators, as can be illustrated by the almost criminal waste of tax payer dollars in the form of PME and AAD/TA. At least a warrant program would save the DOD money because sure as shit I guarantee you people would do AF pylet for W(n) money.

Noted. Nsplayr does not like crank calls.

If that Russian Shit was half as good as you think it is they would have won the Cold War. Obviously it takes a more refined intellect to employ an AR, and with that refinement comes victory.

Its a shame and embarrassment, especially since I know some damn good female pilots (and non-rated officers) that worked hard and earned everything they got.

Potential

If you ever have to bail out in shark infested water you'll care if you're with a female on the rag......and they also attract bears

That's the issue. You are not, and never have been, on the ground. Every article posted so far that opposes this move, which has been authored by someone who is/was a ground pounder, has been readily ignored by you. It all comes down to you espousing endlessly about "fairness", and myself and almost everyone else on this board would argue that the frontline of a battlefield is one place that fairness matters absolutely none. As far as what my son called me when he was younger, it was "Daddy". My point is that you refer to yourself that way in a post that will only be read by a bunch of extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" dudes who want to kill the enemy with impunity. I believe that is a psychological indicator of you being more emotionally sensative than most military members who have been in combat. Guess not. And my credentials are the same as many on this forum. Prior, commissioned, pilot, retired. No "genuine badass" by any stretch, just disenchanted with the way the military is heading, and hoping you (being well-read and also concerned with our nations well being) will understand the fundamental differences between what the military actually needs vs. what certain politically-motivated engines want.

nsplayr, You keep using the same irrelevant arguments. Women employed in military jobs that don't require high physical strength (yet they still necessitate lower standards) does not equate to women equaling men on any realm of physical scale. And siting the Canadian military as a benchmark? Stop trying to be so "progressive" and realize what you're saying: i.e. that the greatest military the world has ever seen should take clues from a lesser military in the name of a liberal-leaning, social equality agenda that has nothing to do with mission effectiveness. You know damn well that the standards will be adjusted for woman. You keep arguing that this is a good idea, as long as the pre-reqs don't change, yet there is no way women will make it through an elite ground forces most basic course unless they are graded on a different scale. If you don't realize this then you are a moron. You've argued that women can be CEO's, pilots, submariners, etc. We get it, they are amazing. Yay for girls. But every post you make readily ignores the physical strain that this new liberal endeavor requires. I realize you care more about feelings than military efficiency, and I've come to understand that ultimately you're a very different man than most on this site. The vast majority of guys here want to talk about fighting, fvcking, and beer. You seem to want the focus of a forum designed for pilots/type A personalities to center on how unfair it would be that your young daughter may not be able to do everything a man can. And you referred to yourself as her "Daddy". I guess it's not fair to expect you to understand what being militant entails.

So you are saying training standards aren't to be enforced in training due to the myriad of accusations that may befall the instructors? And somehow avoiding this by sending a non-performing individual on to the gaining unit and let THEM deal with the problem is a better idea because certainly the failing student will somehow be easier to remove because all the various excuses and accusations will not be used? This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.

It was a gay test. You failed.

Minor point: "Commensurate." Carry on.

Absofuckinglutely. Without even getting into the various examples others have cited (and you've side-stepped) for stuff outside the cockpit (eg, PFT standards). I'm a -135 guy. It's an original "fly-by-wire" airplane (you know, the wire goes from the yoke, through the sprocket, around the pulley and moves an actuator...). Sixty years on, I'd say the AF has gotten its money's worth out of the line. However, in the absence of the computer controlled, hyrdraulicly actuated flight controls that many of my counterparts enjoy, you've got to throw a little ass into making the old girl move. This is most obvious in receiver AR, where small but definite corrections are mandatory for the duration, and failure to apply the same is generally immediately self-critiquing. Enter the skinny girl who weighs 90 pounds with rocks in her pocket, who simply has less "oomph" to put into it. I've known (and instructed) several of those with outstanding skills who can park the jet behind the tanker like it's painted on the windscreen, and who therefore spend less time & energy making those corrections. More typically, though (just like men), these women fall in the "more average" part of the curve and need to work at it--and find themselves unable to maintain a contact for the 20-ish minutes it takes to get a full onload with changing conditions of weight & CG. And that's in stable air & a smooth tanker; forget about more challenging conditions.... Can't do the job = Q-3 & send back to school, right? Not in my community--deploy with a seeing-eye IP to get more "seasoning" is the approved solution. Yep, deploy an extra pilot (on top of all the existing deployment bills) to babysit an AC who can't get the job done on her own. This is an obvious, easy-to-point-to example. There are any number of more insidious examples of how women in the cockpit (in the squadron; in the AF; whatever) have lower standards. The people I see most pissed off about this are the competent women I work with, because they (quite rightly) worry that it calls into question their own qualifications when they see one of their sisters-in-arms who "gets by" by being female. I'm beginning to believe you really are blinded by ideology if you can honestly say you don't see this.... In your fantasy world, anyone (male or female) who can't meet a standard would be eliminated; those of us in the real world (who have been providing you multiple examples in this thread, btw) have witnessed the opposite. Not the point. What standard you instruct to is irrelevant if the system is set up to guarantee non-failure of any particular "protected" group.

I'm sure nsplayr will impeach her article, based on the fact she is a women and therefore her argument is irrational.

I wonder if they used GPS in those vehicles to find their protest spot...

Intense photographic analysis of the photo reveals that the halo effect was actually swamp gas reflecting off the top of the off camera crew chief's flightline kitchen chef's salad container tethered to a random weather balloon. Those guys are all real, really...

This will make people feel less special. Therefore it is good. Also, this thread would be better placed in the road to wings section.

Nsplayr...you support a President and a party that refuses to enforce immigration laws (just one example), yet you speak of values--do you value not enforcing laws? What other laws are not worth enforcing? I think your values are all over the place and sometimes even contradict with one another. I just saw how you wrote a few days ago in another post that youn said the #1 important aspect about the military is the mission/combat effectiveness, yet you point out that allowing women to serve in direct/offensive combat roles is not needed to make the forces stronger, but is the right thing to do because of 'values'. So which is it? ...and to answer your question about the 2 major politcal parties: I think one is pretty bad and the other is horrible. They both suck when it comes to supporting and protecting The Constitution. There's a reason things are so fvcked up right now and why for the last 6+ years the majority of the country says it is on the 'wrong path'. Here's a hint to those people...it's been on a destructive path for a very long time now.

Goddammit. It's not about a fucking career, dipshit. It's about serving your country the most effective way possible. What is in the best interest of our country? Having snake eaters that kill people and break their shit, or lowering the standards so that people can "pursue the career of their dreams."? This would be all well and good if we had equal standards across the board, but we don't. Last I checked, a woman could run the 1.5 two minutes slower than me and get a better score. Fine, let her work in finance where no one gives a fuck, but the dudes kicking in doors don't have that luxury. Not being able to carry your weight (or the weight of a fallen comrade) is a liability. Have you seen some of the shit those dudes did in the mountains of Afghanistan? It really makes NFL/NHL players look like pussies. Being able to hack it is the difference between life and death, not just mission success or failure. On a different note, men and women are different. That's not bad, or good. That's just a fact of life. Men are built to fight, hunt, and kill. Women are not. Men don't worry about "mensies" at certain times of the month. And most importantly - the enemy is ruthless. They won't treat men and women the same in POW situations. Yeah, maybe guys can get raped in the Hanoi hilton, but they sure as shit can't get pregnant from it. It's one thing to see one of your bros go through that. But the men fight so the women don't have to. It's a natural survival instinct. Propagation of the species and all that crap. I cringe at the idea of what the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the North Koreans would do to women captives. It's just not right.

Further word???

Updates?