Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nspreitler said:

The Army is going to a PT test with standards based on MOS not gender or age.    I'm 42 and still a paratrooper, and I've worked with infantrymen who are over 50 and still jumping out of planes.     The unit I am in is one of the first to include female infantrymen.   If someone can do the job, why shouldn't they do it.   The winner of the 82nd Airborne Best Medic competition last year is a female paratrooper, and that was a physically grueling competition. 

N - I’ve got no issue with where you are coming from.  If the criteria is demanding and it’s maintained for both sexes, it’s all good.  It’s only when they lower the bar in the name of diversity, that’s when I have an issue.    

 

BTW, the N.Y. Times ran a piece on the first infantry platoon leader in the Marines.   She sounds like a pretty squared away LT.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wait, where did the F-35 thread go?  I think I’m reading a different thread.....

 

As I said, rolling on like a turd in the wind. 

There's nothing useful here any more.  The arguments being presented are being debated at the opinion level, which means there can never be a definitive "winner."  They're wildly off topic.

There's not even any decent pictures.

 

Even returning to the topic of the F-35, there haven't even been any interesting pictures in several pages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 11bee said:

N - I’ve got no issue with where you are coming from.  If the criteria is demanding and it’s maintained for both sexes, it’s all good.  It’s only when they lower the bar in the name of diversity, that’s when I have an issue.    

 

BTW, the N.Y. Times ran a piece on the first infantry platoon leader in the Marines.   She sounds like a pretty squared away LT.   

 

In my brigade, two of the line infantry company commanders are female, both have Ranger tabs.  There are female Infantry PLs, also all Ranger tabbed.  We have female 11Bs, 19D, 13Bs, and 68Ws.  Having females in these positions hasn't hurt the combat effectiveness of the brigade at all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just doing what I can to keep this dumpster fire of a thread lurching forward:

 

See the source image

 

I do enjoy pics of this aircraft, especially in this configuration.   They have a sci-fi look to them that nothing else matches.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 8:22 PM, nspreitler said:

The Army is going to a PT test with standards based on MOS not gender or age.    I'm 42 and still a paratrooper, and I've worked with infantrymen who are over 50 and still jumping out of planes.     The unit I am in is one of the first to include female infantrymen.   If someone can do the job, why shouldn't they do it.   The winner of the 82nd Airborne Best Medic competition last year is a female paratrooper, and that was a physically grueling competition. 

 

Because the military has rules and standards that though arbitrary are there for a reason. I saw Marines thrown out for sleep walking. They could do their job, why did they have to be thrown out? 

 

This argument always gets floated up, its in the guise of simplicity, but its superficial. The "if they can, why not?" because the failure is more expensive and the chance of success is lower. 

 

Quote

 

As the military prepares to allow female troops in ground combat units, studies show the Department of Veterans Affairs can expect more female veterans will suffer from the kinds of injuries that go with being a ground-pounder.

No one can yet say what that means in treatment program costs or disability compensation increases, but Army and VA studies show that women will be at greater risk for musculoskeletal injuries.

 

Advocates for women serving in direct combat units say the problem may be overcome without lowering standards by improved training and fitness, while critics say nothing is going to change the fact that women are not built to be in the infantry.

For its part, the VA says it has to be ready for a possible rise in the number of female troops with bone, joint and ligament injuries.

"I don't think there is a way now to say exactly what the experience will be, but I expect as more and more women go into these physically demanding roles, we may see an increase in [these] injuries," said Dr. Sally Haskell, VA deputy chief consultant for women's health services and director of comprehensive women's health.

She said the VA already has begun ramping up services for women, including establishing a group of physicians that are its experts in women's health care. This program specifically includes sessions in musculoskeletal health. Also, she said, "we're just beginning to assess our capacity to care for women's specialty needs in the areas of rheumatology and orthopedics."

Women generally, in and out of the military, incur musculoskeletal injuries at rates at least somewhat higher than men, Haskell said.

 

Dr. David Cifu, the VA's national director for physical medicine and rehabilitation, said last year that women carrying the same loads as their male counterparts in the infantry risk more of these kinds of injuries "given the ratio of their size and strength to the packs." A typical infantry soldier carries a load of about 80 pounds.

It is not merely about body strength, according to a 2011 Army paper, it is that "the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fractures and knee damage."

The paper, "Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women," cites multiple Army, VA and Navy data, including a Navy study that found 1 in 367 female recruits were diagnosed with a pelvic stress fracture, versus one in 40,000 male recruits. At the same time, the Army noted that its experience with these kinds of injuries is nearly three times that of the Navy.

"Acute and chronic musculoskeletal problems associated with injuries are consistently the leading causes of outpatient visits and hospitalizations in the Army," the report stated.

The Army also cited a May 2013 Technical Bulletin, "Prevention and Control of Musculoskeletal Injuries," that women are more likely to be disabled than men and are about 67 percent more likely than a male soldier to be discharged for a musculoskeletal disorder. Such discharges have been as high as 140 per 10,000 female soldiers per year, the study said. For men, the number has been about 80 per 10,000 soldiers, according to the study.

Disability costs, the Army said, "are staggering." Even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the VA was already paying roughly 25 percent of its annual $21 billion compensation budget to vets with musculoskeletal injuries.

Up to that point, musculoskeletal disorders already were the leading cause of Army disability cases, constituting 73 percent of the total disability cases for all causes from 1997-2002.

Retired Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, a Navy medical officer, said musculoskeletal injuries "will continue to occur, certainly more frequently among females, if they're expected to perform all the required tasks that go with [duty in] combat units."

"I know it's not politically correct to say this, but men and women are not the same -- there are physical and physiological differences that exist," said Scott, who is on the board of advisers of the Center for Military Readiness. "As long as women are going to have babies, their pelvis is designed as a birth canal, it's designed for that to happen. It's not conducive to heavy load-bearing."

Problems with musculoskeletal injuries among women won't go away, he said, but will worsen as more of them train for and enter ground combat units.

Scott predicts that increasing incidents of bone, joint and ligament injuries will be reflected in the future at the VA, with more disabled female veterans and increasing costs for disability compensation.

"I would expect that ... based on what they've already experienced with regard to women veterans," he said.

Though it does not break down disabilities by type between men and women, a February 2013 VA profile of female veterans stated that a higher percentage of female vets than male vets had a service-connected disability in 2011 -- 19 percent versus 16 percent.

Scott said he believes the numbers of disabled female veterans will only increase with more of them going into direct ground combat units.

"If there is anything the VA can do, it is to look at research in this area, to see if there is a better way to treat these individuals," he said.

Greg Jacob, a former enlisted and officer Marine who is now policy director for Service Women's Action Network, said the Corps looked at the problem of musculoskeletal injuries in 2003.

He said such injuries prevented more than half the women recruits from making it through training.

But the solution is not to keep certain specialties or units closed to women, he said, but to make them better prepared and fit to succeed without sacrificing standards. At Parris Island, S.C., one of the Corps' two boot camps, officials brought in a fitness trainer who had worked with the Carolina Panthers football team to help improve training and avoid injuries, he said,

After about a year, he said, "we started to see these injuries go down."

That's the answer for the Corps and for the Army, he believes.

"It's not man versus women, but an issue that the military has to address," he said. "Demands of combat are not going to change. The rigors of combat are not going to change. But we have to change the way we prepare our people."

 

 

Now don't worry, I've resigned myself to this. We have a top notch military with infinite money, and a superb VA that won't have a problem at all dealing with tons more people who's sole experience in the military was signing up, never making it out of  training unit, and being broken for life. 

 

 

 If you can do it, why shouldn't you? and who cares who is on the hook for the washouts?  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Without all the  rederick that comes from politicians . Just check the Bible  . It states that women are a weaker vessel than  men . What more do I need to know ?

 

 It's just a simple fact.

 

Edited by Chris L
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 11:48 PM, 11bee said:

N - I’ve got no issue with where you are coming from.  If the criteria is demanding and it’s maintained for both sexes, it’s all good.  It’s only when they lower the bar in the name of diversity, that’s when I have an issue.    

 

There we go. 

 

the bottom line truth is that if we opened up combat arms to women, but we made it 100 percent fair. We would have probably never above 3 percent females. so the standards have to be adjusted, thus the double standard. That was Officer McCongressquestion doesn't have to explain why there is such a low percentage of ladies in combat MOSs, or being promoted, etc. 

 

If they can why not? define "can" well the USMC did a big study that proved that even when women could do a bunch of combat tests they couldn't do them as well. If Pvt Schmuaketelly can hump a 90lb arty round at a rate of 6 per minute in an emergency and pvt Sallysuzy can do 3 in one minute, they are indeed both doing the job, but there's a key difference there... Now you don't usually need to do Final Protective Fires, but when you need to, you need to. 

 

oh well.

 

Quote

BTW, the N.Y. Times ran a piece on the first infantry platoon leader in the Marines.   She sounds like a pretty squared away LT.   

 

Man I wish you guys were as forgiving when it came to every piece of positive F-35 news being dismissed as a "puff piece" We all know NYT is going to make her look like a saint. 

 

On 8/18/2018 at 6:53 AM, nspreitler said:

 

In my brigade, two of the line infantry company commanders are female, both have Ranger tabs.  There are female Infantry PLs, also all Ranger tabbed.  We have female 11Bs, 19D, 13Bs, and 68Ws.  Having females in these positions hasn't hurt the combat effectiveness of the brigade at all.  

 

 

I'm glad you're having good experiences, but YMMV. In the end its immaterial. Its going to happen, and we have enough firepower and are so far ahead we can "afford" to lose a bunch before we have to actually reverse course. But yeah its going to hurt people and get some people killed. It would basically take a full on catastrophe to stuff the genie back into the bottle, and even then we would have to make some very direct connections, and besides there will always be men around to help. And honestly, we don't really care about throwing away blood, sweat, tears, and treasure anymore. 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 6:53 AM, Waco said:

 

As I said, rolling on like a turd in the wind. 

There's nothing useful here any more.  The arguments being presented are being debated at the opinion level, which means there can never be a definitive "winner."  They're wildly off topic.

There's not even any decent pictures.

 

Even returning to the topic of the F-35, there haven't even been any interesting pictures in several pages. 

 

 

Well there isn't that much to "debate" anymore. It seems that even the dimmist bulbs whether they are for or against the F-35 are seeing the writing on the wall. The heady days of 2011 where everyone said it was going to be canceled are long long past. 

 

 

The biggest most interesting twist going right now is

 

turkey-chicken-500x500.jpg

 

Sprinting right past Canada in the field of F-35 high drama. I havn't mentioned it because women in combat is somehow less political, but with people bringing up the bible we might as well get this back in the open.

 

In other news:

 

 

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hms-queen-elizabeth-f-35b-flight-trials/

 

 

F-35B_HMS-Queen-Elizabeth_Navy-3_edit-co

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 12:52 PM, phantom said:

All I am say ing is do not discount a person based on their sex.

 

F-35....Seems nice........

 

For me its a simple issue of logistics. The Juice isn't worth the squeeze and the time and capital could be spent on others that might produce a great yield. 

 

I understand that if 1 in 10 females can do it, we should just throw caution to the wind, but when the 9 that can't end up busted and broken for life/wash outs, I have to wonder why we don't just stick with the way that produced 8 out of 10, with 2 broken life/washouts

 

I  understand this may sound contradictory in an F-35 thread where I advocate for the Struggling newcomer over the tried and true teen series and warthogs while forgiving cost overruns, but to me these are horses of a different color 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 3:17 PM, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

There we go. 

 

the bottom line truth is that if we opened up combat arms to women, but we made it 100 percent fair. We would have probably never above 3 percent females. so the standards have to be adjusted, thus the double standard. That was Officer McCongressquestion doesn't have to explain why there is such a low percentage of ladies in combat MOSs, or being promoted, etc. 

 

If they can why not? define "can" well the USMC did a big study that proved that even when women could do a bunch of combat tests they couldn't do them as well. If Pvt Schmuaketelly can hump a 90lb arty round at a rate of 6 per minute in an emergency and pvt Sallysuzy can do 3 in one minute, they are indeed both doing the job, but there's a key difference there... Now you don't usually need to do Final Protective Fires, but when you need to, you need to. 

 

oh well.

 

 

Man I wish you guys were as forgiving when it came to every piece of positive F-35 news being dismissed as a "puff piece" We all know NYT is going to make her look like a saint. 

 

 

 

I'm glad you're having good experiences, but YMMV. In the end its immaterial. Its going to happen, and we have enough firepower and are so far ahead we can "afford" to lose a bunch before we have to actually reverse course. But yeah its going to hurt people and get some people killed. It would basically take a full on catastrophe to stuff the genie back into the bottle, and even then we would have to make some very direct connections, and besides there will always be men around to help. And honestly, we don't really care about throwing away blood, sweat, tears, and treasure anymore. 

 

If they can there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do it.  From what I've seen the women who are in combat arms are in very good shape, and are more than capable of performing the tasks.   The 82nd Airborne is in my opinion the most elite conventional force in the US military, and if women can excel here like they are they can perform above the standard in any formation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nspreitler said:

 

If they can there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do it.  

 There are billion$ of reasons, but it doesnt matter. Strange that the Marines have such a different view than the elite 82nd. I've got my first hand accounts as well.

 

But back to the regular F-35 griping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 There are billion$ of reasons, but it doesnt matter. Strange that the Marines have such a different view than the elite 82nd. I've got my first hand accounts as well.

 

But back to the regular F-35 griping.

 

Well, the Marine, Secretary Mattis agrees with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, habu2 said:

Previously reported, but currently relevant ???

 

https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/08/meet-the-first-female-f-35-pilot/

A girl that can fly a fighter?   Next thing you know, they'll be letting them in the infantry.  Was she flying this jet?

 

hyPDI7LM?format=jpg&name=600x314

 

Kidding lads.....

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at Tyndall when she was going thru flight training, we were asked (told) not to photograph her. 

 

Does that mean she was treated differently by the military ??????       /s

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 11bee said:

A girl that can fly a fighter?   Next thing you know, they'll be letting them in the infantry.  Was she flying this jet?

 

hyPDI7LM?format=jpg&name=600x314

 

Kidding lads.....

 

Is it just me or does it look like a bloodhound tracking a scent to anyone else?

 

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/28/2018 at 12:37 PM, B2Blain said:

Here you go.  First pic of an F-35C in a line squadron - VFA-147.  Maybe the CAG jet has some color but I kind of doubt it.  Decals????

 

 180820-N-FK070-1172.JPG

 

 

Its coloured... same as VMFA 121's bird. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...