“I have zero problems with a female fighter pilot as it does not take great upper body strength to to be a fighter pilot.”
Flying the Tomcat took a substantial amount of upper body strength. Flying any fighter requires the strength to stand up to G forces.
“If she can meet the same standards”
She can’t. Ever. That’s why they have to lower standards to get women in the force. Even if women could meet standards, which they can’t, their mere presence creates problems that our fighting men shouldn’t have to deal with.
Neck strength alone should disqualify any woman.
Exactly. You said it far more concisely than I could. It is a fallacy to think that flying a fighter aircraft doesn’t take physical strength. As you seem to know, it does, and if you are in an engagement with another aircraft, that can be the difference.
I recall reading that in aerial combat, a pilot could tell if his adversary was tired or weakened by the way he flew his plane. There was a lack of crispness or control that was visually telling, and could be decisive.
As for the strength one needs to man a combat vessel, one need only read “Neptune’s Inferno” about the naval campaigns around the Solomon Islands in 1942. The physical strength of the men on a ship was often the only thing keeping it above the water. When all the fire mains have been shot out and you have to resort to buckets, upper body strength is everything. And that doesn’t even take into account having to remove men or ammunition from burning compartments to save their lives or the life of the ship.
People make this error of assuming that because the bridge of a ship and her weapons are all electronic, that physical strength is irrelevant and all one has to do is be able to read a computer screen and push buttons is absolutely ludicrous.