First female F-35 pilot begins training

Production milestones, roll-outs, test flights, service introduction and other milestones.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post17 May 2015, 02:36

xt0xickillax wrote:Lowering of standards is an ugly fact that so many won't recognize. Again, look at the standards for firefighters and police force and see how they are lowered to allow women to pass. And here's something else for everyone to think about.


During my time on the fire department, we didn't have separate standards for men and women. The women all passed the physical tests. Not all of the men did.
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post17 May 2015, 15:57

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
thomonkey wrote:I have no problem with women being in the military, but physical standards should not be lowered.


I concur, when a task requires physical strength as a core requirement, then the standards should be kept.

If it's a non physical role, then the physical standards should be kept appropriate for the gender.


IMHO physical standards should be set to meet the minimum level required to get the job done safely and efficiently, and not gender based at all. In the vast majority of cases that will not exclude any gender, but ensure equal opportunity. As far as an Air Force is concerned, I doubt there are many jobs that require minimum physical strength that excludes anybody by gender alone.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5937
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 May 2015, 17:24

lamoey wrote: As far as an Air Force is concerned, I doubt there are many jobs that require minimum physical strength that excludes anybody by gender alone.


Thats been my experience with the air force too :D J/K
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Mar 2017, 19:24

Meet The First Female F-35 Pilot
By Tom Demerly March 08, 2017

USAF Lt. Col. Christine Mau Is The First Woman to Fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This Is Why It Does, And Doesn’t Matter.

It was May 7, 2015. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. In a (today) seemingly minor event in aviation history deputy-commander of the U.S. Air Force 33rd Fighter Wing Operations Group, Lt. Col. Christine Mau, became the first female ever to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The event marked several ongoing milestones, the first woman to fly an F-35 anywhere in the world, but also the increasing integration of female combat pilots into the most advanced flight operations in the world.

“Women have been flying fighters in combat for over 20 years” Lt. Col. Mau said in an interview with Air Force media.

Her remarks de-emphasized the gender topic and focused on the performance of the (then) new F-35A Lightning II. At the time Lt. Col. Mau flew the F-35A for the first time, there were only 86 other (male) pilots certified to fly the F-35A in the entire U.S. Air Force.

While there have been cultural gender-biased barriers to entry for women in combat roles in most armed services some of the barriers to entry for female- and male- combat pilots were technical. In October of 2015 the U.S. Air Force required that any pilot using the F-35 Lightning II’s Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat requires a minimum pilot weight of 136 pounds. Martin-Baker’s original specification for pilot weight in the US16E ejection seat was 103 pounds. The temporary change was implemented by the Air Force from concerns about ejection seat performance in specific areas of the aircraft’s flight performance envelope. The Air Force and Martin-Baker have subsequently published that the weight restriction will be lifted in April 2017 according to media outlet Defense News. The article went on to characterize the original weight restriction as be imposed as a result of “high risk of severe or potentially fatal neck injuries upon being ejected from the aircraft.”

“Flying is a great equalizer,” Mau told Air Force media in 2015. “The plane doesn’t know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support,” Lt. Col. Mau said. “You just have to perform. That’s all anyone cares about when you’re up there — that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well.”

Being the first female to fly the F-35A was not Lt. Col. Mau’s first page in the aviation history book. She also flew the first all-female combat sortie conducted by the U.S. Air Force in 2011 when she and an all-female maintenance and planning crew launched an F-15E Strike Eagle combat operation against insurgents in Afghanistan’s Kunar Valley.

Lt. Col. Mau comes from a family of aviators. Her father was a C-130 pilot in the Air National Guard and a commercial pilot for Continental Airlines. She is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy in the class of 1997.

Her contributions to military aviation not only as an outstanding pilot and leader but also as a woman prove that physics and aerodynamics do not acknowledge gender, and that in the air, every pilot is equal on the basis of gender.

Source: https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/08/m ... -35-pilot/


Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post11 Mar 2017, 21:42

This is PC front and center, although I don't see it as an issue for pilots. I'm not sure they have the aggressive nature so vital to being a fighter pilot. Maybe some do. But I'm absolutely opposed to lowering physical standards for any job to accommodate women. In grunt work, it'll cost lives. It for sure can be disruptive with men and women getting "involved".

People will scream "discrimination"! and hide behind PC agendas. None of which changes the fact that lives are at stake, and lowering physical standards will cost lives. I also think they're more likely to crack under stress/fire than most men. Look at Hillary Clinton, the so-called "iron lady". She's as tough as any man. She's strong. She's unflappable. She.... fell apart when she lost, and couldn't face her supporters. Some of which worked for her for YEARS..

That's not a political statement. It's indicative of the female tendency to fall apart under stress. Not ALL women, but more of them than not. The same can't be said of men. More men will hold it together vs. crack. Not all men. Most. Call me a sexist. That is the knee jerk/defense mechanism for those types. You're never to going to change the reality that women are emotional creatures, and subject to that reality. Testosterone drives men to take risks and fight, and men have on average 10 times more of it than women.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1346
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 03:33

It'd be PC if there was a ~50% mix of female pilots in the USAF; as it is, LtCol Mau (to my knowledge) is the only female F-35 pilot.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 07:42

This is going to sound really sexist but putting smart and beautiful in the line of fire seems like one of the stupidist ideas mankind has ever come up with. It is probably only second to dressing up in funny uniforms and shooting at each other thinking that is going to solve the world's problems.
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 14:22

alloycowboy wrote:This is going to sound really sexist


You're right on that one at least.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 14:53

alloycowboy wrote:... It is probably only second to dressing up in funny uniforms and shooting at each other thinking that is going to solve the world's problems.


No perhaps, but since it seems you are in a gun free zone, if I come over and bash you in the head with a club, I get to have all your stuff without working for it, and that solves my problems ... Oh wait! You aren`t going to dress guys up in uniforms and shoot at me, are you? ... No? .. Good! I like your stuff... how do you turn this X-Box onto your TV wifi btw...

:D :D :D
Kum ba ya !!!! <sarc off>
BP
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 15:31

alloycowboy, watch this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYSx64vc_SE

Mary has been flying for 20 years, and has 1000+ hours in the Viper. She has three kids, and has survived a nasty brain tumor - and taken the skies back.

If you should take the (yes, sexist) position that women can't fight or fly, you're not only wrong - you're willingly reducing the capabilities of your forces.

Please don't.
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 15:32

mixelflick wrote:It's indicative of the female tendency to fall apart under stress.


Please support that statement with real data.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3347
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post12 Mar 2017, 16:45

krorvik wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It's indicative of the female tendency to fall apart under stress.


Please support that statement with real data.


Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton

Ever the Feminazi hero, Clinton was "as strong as a man", tough as nails and wouldn't crack under pressure. Except when the sh!t hit the fan she was a blithering, drunken mess who couldn't face her own people. The very people that worked for YEARS on her behalf. She talked a good game, but like all the rest - failed the ultimate test. Thank GOD she didn't get the nuclear codes.

You simply cannot refute that nature has equipped men to fight and women to cry. Males have 10 times the testosterone, which makes them aggressive and want to fight. It also dramatically improves physical and mental performance, strength, competitiveness etc.. And in the field, physical strength/killer instinct or lack thereof costs lives. If this wasn't the case, female athletes wouldn't take male hormones to excel. In the real world, they take testosterone and test analogs (aka steroids) to improve their physical performance.

Leftist college professors do a great job brainwashing young minds. A willing media continues the narrative after they leave school, and a PC work culture finishes the job. The next time planes fly into buildings, send some skirts in to carry the day. You'll find out right quick how wrong you really are...

You will of course, accuse me of "sexism" (the left's preferred modus operandi when anyone disagrees with them)..
Last edited by mixelflick on 13 Mar 2017, 15:07, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

mike5560

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2016, 06:03

Unread post13 Mar 2017, 01:03

I don't know why that aviationist article is dated march of 2017......everything in there is two years old.

But anyway, I don't see an issue here. Women have been flying fighters for way too long for this to be surprising to anyone. The fact is, the F-35 is a media magnet. I think it's natural to want to publish something like this.....Controversial fighter x Controversial gender = Hysteria squared which simplifies to more hits.

Viper and Eagle squadrons have women fliers in them too, but you see almost nothing about women fighter pilots in the media unless she flies an A-10 (see above formula). Physical PT standards for pilots are the same as for the rest of the air force. The only difference is the requirement to pass a flight physical.....at least for USAF.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post13 Mar 2017, 05:05

mike5560 wrote:I don't know why that aviationist article is dated march of 2017......everything in there is two years old.

But anyway, I don't see an issue here. Women have been flying fighters for way too long for this to be surprising to anyone. The fact is, the F-35 is a media magnet. I think it's natural to want to publish something like this.....Controversial fighter x Controversial gender = Hysteria squared which simplifies to more hits.

Viper and Eagle squadrons have women fliers in them too, but you see almost nothing about women fighter pilots in the media unless she flies an A-10 (see above formula). Physical PT standards for pilots are the same as for the rest of the air force. The only difference is the requirement to pass a flight physical.....at least for USAF.

I'm not surprised. They've had female fighter pilots and test pilots for a long time. Not surprised that the 57th Wing at Nellis (units include the USAF Weapons School, hosting Red Flag) is commanded by a female F-15E pilot who has flown many combat missions.

Most female fighter pilots (& test pilots) I've come across would rather stay out of the media, or fly for The Thunderbirds!
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5937
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Mar 2017, 05:39

krorvik wrote:If you should take the (yes, sexist) position that women can't fight or fly, you're not only wrong - you're willingly reducing the capabilities of your forces.

Please don't.


The ship has already sailed on Female pilots. I think there are certain positions women can handle. next, its not "sexist". its not sexist to point out basic biological differences that generally keep women in second place on the battlefield. (keeping in mind second place is dead last.) in the Orwellian PC 21st century We are equal yet, different. the same, yet diverse-- Well guess what? Differences are real things. You can't have equality and diversity because one part of diversity may well be superiority.

But as someone who in a groundside Combat arms MOS, no they can't fight as well as men can. This should be painfully obvious (for some women it literally is). You'll notice for example many pro, college, olympic, and competitive sports are not integrated. yet a battlefield should be? And its been proven many times over and payed for with blood sweat and tears.

If you really want to get into "reducing the capabilities of your force" I can site tens of thousands of cases of men getting embroiled with women in the military and its lead to pregnancy, divorce, discharge, criminal investigations, charges, endless sexual harassment briefings, s3x, scandals, s3x scandals, fraternization, double standards, STDs, degradation of morale and unity, rape, massive clamp downs on everything from hazing to P0rn, stressed and dismissed and exhausted leadership, double standards across the board, increased medical needs, increased medical costs, increased injuries. I could go on and on, but that's just off the top of my head. Ive seen it. Ive watched it happen. and by and large, and take a deep breath for this: Ive basically watched over the last 25 years women reducing the capability of our force. creating problems that otherwise wouldn't be there if they weren't there. Leadership gets to deal on daily basis with trying to keep the birds and the bees apart rather than the mission. its like hiring alcoholics to work in your tavern. Gee you don't think that could lead to problems do ya? Do you think you have to watch them like hawks rather than getting your work done?

And thanks to folks hand waiving the issue and taking some "moral high ground" when the equality propaganda hits the rocks of reality, they simply dismiss the real life, everyday problems a lot of policies have help create.

There are tons of books and studies about it, along with tons of anecdotes. I'm not a "sexist" but there are facts that are hard to ignore like women getting knee injuries at 10 times the rate of men, and shin splints to the tune of triple digit million dollars a year. because women are more prone to shin splints alone, and tons of lower body issues in general. Military journals have actually published that women get injured at higher rates than men in military training programs. College (IE civilians) sports programs have also noted the higher rate of injury in female athletes. So all the science we have has come to the same independent conclusion over and over, both military and civilian.

There is a lot of frustration for 4 key reasons:

1. Equality propagandists who when confronted with reality resort to name calling and believe that equality is the highest objective to attain in any endeavor, who use gender or some kind of quota rather than qualifications and performance.
2. Useful idiots (enablers) who blindly follow the notion that equality of the force is the same thing as superiority on the battlefield.
3. The people in the know (like myself) are dismissed as weirdos from a by gone era when we actually have tons of first hand knowledge.
4. The lack of acknowledgment that there are differences. Because there are.

The Army concluded in the 1990s for example that women could indeed be brought up to higher standards, but all training even basic training would need to be increased by several weeks. But the Equality police couldn't have that. IT would give the impression that women took longer to train. So the solution was the lowered standards. Now they could pass training on the same day as the gents, well most of them anyway. The army had concluded that female soldiers were indeed different, and like all soldiers who are falling short need additional help to make the grade and they were denied that in the name of "equality."

Its a real problem. And if you want to call me sexist for pointing out that there are differences (err i mean celebrating diversity!), I would rather be called sexist than be a blind, ignorant fool. If you want to bring out the old sexist name calling, lets save it for those "equal" physical fitness standards, that have different and lower standards for females. talk about sexist!! And wouldn't you know it? even after all these decades of being told women are equal, they still have their own standards, and they are lower than the males. How about that? You would think with them being equality we wouldn't have 2 standards, but here we are. From day 1 of basic training, there are different standards. only 30 percent of female soldiers can pass the male fitness standards. Women soldiers have gotten huge high scores by female standards (300 out of 300) but when applied to the male standard it suddenly becomes a much more average 240 out of 300. We also have example of no-joke physical tasks that literally have lives on the line (stretcher carry, fireman's carry) that women do particularly poorly in

:doh:

So any who don't be one of those blind fools, there are examples all over the place:

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."


...My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.

She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.

"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the bathroom by myself."

Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.

When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:

"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.

From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:

(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.

Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.

The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country.

Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

more from the same author:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/WomenInCombat.shtml

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MoreWomenLetters.shtml



I'm not a mathematician, but 1 female performing to the male standards for every 130 males. That does not sound like equality. Which should be around (and its been a while so bear with me) 50-50

Again its Orwellian. one of the weird popcorn moments for us here in the states was the notion that all jobs even combat in the military should be open to women. Lots of folks then started asking question about everything from women having to register for selective service, to domestic violence laws. I was also told repeatedly by the same people that women should be our leaders because they are "naturally more cooperative, more peaceful" but that they were also just as violent and ruthless as the men on the battlefield. Its really darkly funny. I just know I won't let my kid join the military, and I know several other people in uniform who are saying the same thing. For a lot of us that is breaking a 3 or 4 generation streak of military service.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 milestones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests