Posted on 06/01/2015 10:56:35 AM PDT by Paul46360
Edited on 06/01/2015 11:23:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I don’t know if this story will get widespread coverage, but it’s one we’ve certainly been tracking. We’ve been keeping you apprised of the quest for social egalitarianism in our U.S. military with the inclusion of females in combat billets (duty positions) such as Marine Infantry and U.S. Army Rangers. The Obama administration decreed in 2015 — without Congressional approval — that Army Ranger training and in 2016, U.S. Navy SEAL training would be open to females. After all, to the liberal progressives of the Obama administration and their ilk, it is just a job, which should be open and available to everyone — their definition of social justice.
Well, this recent revelation is quite telling. Remember we last reported about the eight female Soldiers who passed the pre-Ranger indoctrination course? As reported by Yahoo News, “On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that all the women who had attempted to graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the standards, according to a military source. Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women who originally entered the school’s first co-ed class were allowed to recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round.”
“The Friday announcement will confirm that this happened again. The Rangers are the best of the best, and being a Ranger means passing a physical test that pushes body and mind to the breaking point. If women can’t do it, the argument goes, then they shouldn’t be Rangers. But there is another opinion quietly being voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage – an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it – than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them out are outdated.”
This isn’t about “chest thumping,” it’s about training the toughest and hardest convention formation light infantry fighters in the U.S. Army. My greatest concern is that soon the belief will be we don’t need tough standards — after all, it’s about every kid getting a trophy. But this is not about everyone getting to play. Elite fighting force has a meaning.
(Excerpt) Read more at allenbwest.com ...
“Ranger training typically runs 61 days, so if 2nd LT Suzie Cupcake didn’t make it through that selection, can anyone guess about SEAL training?”
Depends. Do they get time off for their period thingy?
I had a similar conversation with an Air Force major at the AF Academy in 1975 - the year before they admitted the first class with women. We were bombarded by commissioned officers conducting surveys and opinion polls of cadets. The major in question asked me what I thought of lowering the PT standards, to which I replied, “The Air force tells us they can do anything we can do, so why lower the standards?” No reply...
Yeah, I remember the stink over the LCWB annotation the senior class gave itself that year.
I worked with another captain in 1985 who was in that first class. I served with a lot of academy grads over my career, some good, some not so much, but she definitely had that sense of entitlement and almost arrogance without the knowledge to go along with it. She also expressed some disdain that I was prior enlisted training her. I had previously been a Marine NCO and she found out the true meaning of attitude adjustment.
LOL!
The female navy pilot you mention was Kara Hultgreen. First female fighter pilot in the navy. She died within a few months of completing her carrier qualifications after making two serious mistakes attempting to land her F-14.
LT Kara Hultgreen was the first USN female fighter pilot qualified in the F-14A Tomcat. Hultgreen had a mediocre training record, but was flagged as the leader in the fighter pilot derby. In addition, Hultgreen was not a safe pilot, because she'd had five Class A accidents [where the aircraft is seriously damaged or destroyed]. A male officer would have had his flight status pulled after two, but Hultgreen was allowed five.
On 25 October 1994, Hultgreen was killed when her F-14A, crashed on approach to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) off the coast of San Diego after a routine training mission.
Finding herself overshooting the landing area centerline, Hultgreen attempted to correct her approach by applying left rudder pedal which caused the nose to disrupt the airflow over the left (inside) wing as well as the airflow to the left engine intake. (The Approach Turn Stall, aerodynamic effect and the appropriate recovery technique were taught throughout the period that Hultgreen completed primary [undergraduate] flight training.) The left-hand engine suffered a compressor stall and lost power -- a well-known deficiency characteristic of the F-14A's TF30 engine when inlet air was no longer flowing straight into it. The F-14 NATOPS flight manual warned against excess yaw for this reason. Loss of an F-14 engine results in asymmetric thrust, which can exceed rudder authority, especially at low speeds.
After aborting the approach, Hultgreen selected full afterburner on the remaining engine, causing an even greater asymmetry. This, combined with a high angle of attack, caused an unrecoverable approach turn stall and rapid wing drop to the left. The radar intercept officer (RIO) in the rear seat, LT Matthew Klemish, initiated ejection for himself and Hultgreen as soon as it was apparent that the aircraft was becoming uncontrollable. First in the automated ejection sequence, the RIO survived. However, by the time Hultgreen's seat fired 0.4 seconds later, the plane had rolled past the horizontal and she was ejected downward into the water. She was killed instantly. The entire event unfolded in less than 20 seconds.
I’m taking a wild stab at the answer, 0? Now, I’ll read the article. :-))
Why not bring back cavalry divisions with soldiers on horseback?
We know that didn’t work as well as modern tank divisions, etc., for winning wars, but of course that’s not the purpose of our military anymore. The purpose is to expand diversity beyond all rational limits for the sake of political correctness.
At least if they go through with this women-in-combat policy, I hope Hollywood will make a movie about the training procedures.
As I envision it, the movie would include major roles for Melissa McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey as women who have tried every known diet with no success and are hoping SEAL training will finally do the trick; Meryl Streep as a Hillaryesque 67-year-old escapee from a mental institution who believes she has the body of a 25-year-old Olympic athlete; and Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce, who believes he will die unless he can continually find publicity stunts like SEAL training to engage in.
This could be boffo.
Exactly. Liberals keep telling us how important it is to have a specific percentage of representation by minorities in schools because it improves the learning process.
I have not heard a single one of the explain just how that improves the learning process, but they all parrot it without fail.
There was a book a while back about the USN rag squadron that trained Hornet pilots: “Bogeys and Bandits: The Making of a Fighter Pilot”.
In it, they had a few female pilots, and one of them was a real piece of work. She wasn’t beyond accusing the trainers and the Navy of sexual harassment and discrimination to cover up her rather severe deficiencies.
It was pretty scary to read. I will say, one had to feel a bit of sympathy for the other female pilot in with her, who seemed to simply want to absorb the training and lessons, learn from them, and do her job, and she was concerned that she would be viewed the same way as the problematic one.
Just a comment: I am somewhat familiar with the story, and I don’t think she had five Class-A incidents, because that would be a dramatically significant accumulation for a Lieutenant in the Navy.
According to the documentation, a “Class A mishap is one in which the total cost of damage to property or aircraft or UAV exceeds $1,000,000, or a naval aircraft is destroyed or missing, or any fatality or permanent total disability results from the direct involvement of naval aircraft or UAV.”
She had four training incidents (as you correctly point out, two would be enough to gt a pilot washed out...usually) but they kept pushing her through. I think these kinds of training incidents were the kind of thing like shooting down your own plane in an engagement, going through an altitude limitation with no good justification or otherwise deviating from the established aviation/NATOPS procedures in such a way that under the right circumstances could result in an accident or loss of life. I don’t thing they were actual accidents...that would be pretty remarkable that they even let her near a plane, in that case if she actually did have five Class-A incidents! (Many of us would think someone like John McCain treads in that territory!)
Your post was otherwise an accurate one, and describes it well.
I hope I am wrong also. Troops are allowed to re-cycle training programs..but still have to MEET the min requirements..I fear is that this failure will result in the LEFT to say those min requirements need to be lowered. Kinda like they had to for fire fighters. Changing the application process to allow those less intelligent to be given a chance...
Here’s what I think they should do. Have an all-female rangers team - no training with men. No mixed sexes teams if they can cut the mustard. Same with homosexuals. Segregate them and let them prove themselves if they are so equal to heterosexual men. Why should our troops be put in harm’s way to satisfy someone’s whim?
We are 100% in agreement there. Looks like the Rangers want to replicate it, but it probably won't be as dramatic as Lt. Hultgreen.
It will come out in an investigation after a operational pooch screw. And be covered up.
I have no doubt! My father was a CMSgt in the Air Force and, just for the record, I didn’t graduate from the Academy. I resigned near the end of my second year after realizing that the career-minded cadets in my class, those who wanted to fly and fight and weren’t just interested in a free education or sports, were gone. I enlisted in the Army about a year later and went to OCS as an E-7. Needless to say, I got a lot of “special” attention at OCS.
Thanks for your service and a shout out to all vets!
Well, this group didn't get there. They recycled out of Darby Phase.
Darby? Really? That was just a bunch of PT, rucking, and squad org. However we did have pax that were “peered out” and we lost about 5% to poor swimmers IIRC. Mountain phase knocked out about 40% either by injury or peer-out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.