Leaderboard

I’m from the south so I can’t really put into words well what I’m trying to say. I think if anyone makes us a better fighting force then we need to make a way for them the be a part of the team. If they need exceptions to make that happen then we need to look at the reg and ask “why was this an issue to not wear headgear or have beards?” If we come to the conclusion that it was just a rule we made up for the sake of uniformity, maybe we just eliminate the rule altogether. Then woila, no exception is needed because now a well groomed beard is uniformly acceptable (i.e. the German military). But the military is not a social experiment and if it comes to the conclusion that someone being in the military is not in the military’s best interest (a paraplegic fighter pilot), then I would say, thank you for your offer of service, let’s find somewhere better suited for that service. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I haven’t seen this personally but I honestly don’t know why people (especially retirees) have such a problem with this. I know the military is different but Freedom of Religion is protected under the First Amendment. These are some of the questions that should be asked about these people: Are they loyal to the USAF and the USA? Are they hard workers? Are they doing the job to the best of their ability? If the answers are yes, then I don’t have a problem with them wearing turbans or having beards. —————————————————————— Also, beards DO NOT affect the seal on a gas mask or O2 mask....

I don't necessarily agree with the false dilemma you're presenting, which is asking what least bad scenario we're willing to accept: a Muslim in uniform or a Muslim at home. No one has made any allusions to that, by the way. Denying an outward display of religion isn't the same as denying a religious person's ability to serve. If it were, do we want someone so inflexible in their personal belief system to be trusted to do what's asked by their Nation in a time of crisis? If we're an all-volunteer force in need of warm bodies, it should be abundantly clear that granting special status and exemptions to extremely small groups creates resentment by those who don't enjoy the same. If you're deployed and complaining about not being able to grow a killer mustache while no one else can either, it's not a big deal. But when you start seeing an ever increasing number of exemptions be granted, it begins to irritate. Same goes for the running waiver at the mass PT test when you see a large group standing around during the run. You get people who say things like "It must be nice to be on that 'I don't have to do the run this year because my knee hurts' gravy train." If ywe want to loosen the standards to reflect the increased diversity and equality we all enjoy, that's great! But I believe we should loosen them equally for everyone instead of labeling those who point out inconsistencies as "intolerant" and "defensive" while giving the ol' virtue-signalling finger wag to score easy debate points.

All the Sikhs I’ve worked with on international exercises are badass. They are a warrior class. I would be honored to have more of them working directly on the US side. We need a little more warrior, little less snowflake marshmallow as a crew force. Removing a religious barrier to get these guys working with us is a win. And if others get beards down the road, also neat. Not expected tho.

You can view it however you want man. I've personally never felt my "esprit de corp" hurt by when a woman runs faster, slower or in the same time as me. That might say more about you than the force as a whole. People wrapped up on this, just like people wrapped up on turbans and beards, have shown a really hollow adherence to a very clouded and artificial concept (esprit de corp) that honestly doesn't have a whole lot of backing for how you can measure it or it's contribution to combat power.

If you’ve been in the Air Force for longer than 15 mins, you realize that standards for men and women are way different and it goes way beyond the PT test. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

If you’ve been in the Air Force for longer than 15 mins, you realize that standards for men and women are way different and it goes way beyond the PT test. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

1.) I think that's the incorrect usage of "Okay Boomer." 2.) What I said is absolutely 100% correct and you can google and watch Dr Neil Baumgartner yourself (guy who designed AF PT test) and he will tell you the same. He selected the standard of 45-60 VO2 max because it was heavily correlated with lower risk for diabetes and heart disease. He used a large study by the Cooper institute to determine that women who run between XX:XX and YY:YY have a VO2 MAX of 45-60 and men have to run significantly faster to demonstrate the same VO2 max. Regardless, the entire intent of the test is to measure your VO2 max. He even discusses that he wanted to get rid of Push-ups and Situps all together because they don't scientifically assess anything and have no associated standards, but he was legit over ruled by boomers in that case who argued a military organization should do push up. (which is a really really dumb reason to do push-ups) Anyway, the point is, we don't need this assininely strict interpretation of uniformity to have esprit de corp or good order and discipline. Women have been integrated for nearly 40 years now with different dress and appearence standards and hair standards and while the AF is a burning dumpster fire, there are about a million things I can point fingers at because I think it's unfair women can wear skirts and I can't.

I don’t get the issue here. When you are in uniform you represent the organization you chose of your own free will to work for. If you aren’t a chaplain, you don’t represent religious, personal, political, or any other beliefs while wearing it. If X individual can have a beard without tarnishing the uniform then everyone serving should be permitted as well.

1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party. But! 2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them. Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!.. 5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone. If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares! 6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want.

I am familiar with an issue where a Muslim member died as a result of his service an autopsy was required as a result contrary to Muslim beliefs. Since this member joined and agreed to live by the military ethos, then he accepted the military’s decision as a result. This discussion isn’t about denying someone their religious beliefs but showing them a standard exists and if they choose to accept that in order to join then they do that. What about evangelical Christians. They aren’t allowed to practice their beliefs. But we make it ok for certain individuals to practice their beliefs but not others? Pretty odd. Homestar, no one is defensive here. Just pointing out that you were inaccurate and dishonest with your made up narrative which by the way you have yet to retract.

I’ve heard nothing, and thinking of giving a call tomorrow to see where they’re at or if it’s a sign to move on

This is where my view comes from. I don't want people of different faiths in the military who are willing to compromise their spiritual fabric because of something that offers an unknown measure of military effectiveness. If they are willing to compromise their moral identity for something so trivial, what will happen when someone comes to them with a much larger oppurtunity. The options for them are currently 1.) don't join, or 2.) compromise. Largely, many of them won't join, and as a force, that weakens us because we are missing the insights unique to their cultural upbringing; a lesson I think we've squarely been smashed in the dick on for the last 20 years. I think Homestar nailed it when he said we simply have a cultural fabric to diverse to make everyone exactly the same. So make it as unified as possible, then realises those differences are actually our strengths. We are looking for unity of purpose, not unity of thought/ideas/expereince.

I don't think that's the implication at all. I don't believe anyone here is making the argument that a particular gender/race/religion/body type/sexual preference/political view are a detriment to the military mission. The detriment is due to the creation of different standards for different subsets of people who are doing the same job. The military uniform standard evolved due to a need to eliminate identity politics and tribalism within the ranks, not encourage it.

Job decisions are made in the Air Force to pick a particular sex or minority in the false name of diversity every single day. Largely to the detriment of the Military and its mission. Which means less effective fighting force to defend the country. But no big deal. China is about to wipe out a large potion of the population with their biological warfare designed super virus. So I guess it won’t matter much.

I hear ya. Personally, I see nothing wrong with making reasonable accommodations for religious reasons. My Sikh buddy having a beard doesn’t make me feel like wearing a beard. I’m also ok with making accommodations for amputees returning to fly, old guys like me doing fewer pushups to max the test, and 4’10” women running the 1.5 mi run slower. This isn’t the infantry where we all need to be able to haul a 180 lb dummy over a barrier.

True. Though you know, all of us age. I wouldn't argue against getting rid of age brackets anyway. Nice strawman. Me either. Reality is, its more difficult to make a team of folks when they operate under different standards based on their race/religion/gender/etc. I'm a proponent for singular standards across the board. Combat airpower tie in: Ive seen this end the service of guys who were otherwise high performers and, tighter teams perform better. My piece is said, again... we certainly do have bigger issues.

My whole point is what’s the point in having different standards for different groups? That’s not a standard by definition. I have no issues with beards as long as that is the “standard”. I’m not ready to die on this hill, but I just think we need to have some blanket standards in place and not try and have a million different rules for a million different people. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Most people know how the test was designed. This does not support your argument that we have the "same" standard. We have different standards, literally generated by discriminating based on gender averages. As long as a woman can score an "excellent" for a run time that would end a man's career, we are damaging esprit de corp. But, sure, we have bigger problems.

Alright look dude, the information is out there. I'm not going to fish it for you. Yes, you should as an officer, spend considerable time understanding the standards you uphold your subordinates to and WHY they are there. If you don't spend time understanding those standards, that's on you, not me. I never had trouble knowing my units doc statement and knowing my job as an officer.

What detriment? Don't know about you, but about the most physically demanding thing I've done in my career is bag drags on/off the jet. There's plenty of jobs in a modern milliary where running faster/lifting heavier isn't really necessary to do your job well.

Next you will tell me that a Chiropractor didn’t go to Medical School! Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Yeah, got the call yesterday!

Of the 330,000 odd people serving in the active duty Air Force, I’m betting the number of people growing beards and wearing turbans is quite low. If you’ve sworn the oath to defend the US, then I really could careless if your religious beliefs expect you to wear a turban or beard. Times change, and unless those actions affect their job performance, it shouldn’t be an issue.

Same on making it my full time job till corrected. Expect them to just start garnishing wages until they pay off your “debt” had it happen to me as a young Lt, with no money, student loans and a newborn. Went to my Commander who said, “that sucks, you should of had an emergency fund” UFB. On a related note, I have $11k in Guard pay still due to me from 2019 that hasn’t paid out yet. It’s amazing how difficult they make these things. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I say if they let them wear beards, we should all be allowed to wear beards. I also believe in one standard PFT for men and women. Special jobs can set their own standards that fit with their requirements. Blanket minimum standard across the service. No more catering to special interest groups, either it meets standards or not. If the standards aren’t applicable anymore then don’t make exceptions to policy, just change the fcvking standard. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I'm a former EF-111A EWO, I can easily envision a digital jamming system being carried by an unmanned air vehicle. In the Raven, which used something like an intel 8080 processor for most of its life, we could program the jammers to work automatically. If nothing broke all I had to do is turn on the master radiate switch, hold a banana in front of my chauffeur with one hand, while keeping an eye on the ALQ-99, an eye on the generators, an eye on the nav system, an eye on our paper chart, and an eye out the window. 😁 A jamming drone large enough to accommodate VHF/UHF jamming antennas would seem a logical idea in the modern age.

I for the life of me can't seem to figure out why the AF is having a retention problem... Oh, and I agree, I would make this my new full time job until it is resolved.

Checking my list of things to give a shit about today........Nope, not on it.

I really can't understand the frustration on this either. We're at a point where finding people who are capable and willing to join the armed forces is becoming harder and harder yet we want to tell people they have to choose their country over their God. That's simply not going to happen.

Some retirees care because they’re orienting around a stake they drove at the height of their glory days. Others keep driving new stakes.

If only there was an aircraft in the Air Force inventory that checks all the boxes, (besides loiter time, which a slick T-6 can’t even do) is designed purely for attacking stuff on the ground, has a significantly longer endurance than any pointy nose, with a proven track record dominating in the COIN and traditional environment. But lets cut their funding and scrap 44 of them. More armed drones sound like a much better use of money than a single engine prop plane that’ll have no standoff and realistically carry maybe 1 or 2 bombs to even make TOLD seeing as it cant AR after takeoff.