galaxy flyer

You base that on what, exactly? I refer you to page 3, headed Education of the linked article directly addressing your HS question.


GF

KA350Driver

Based on the fact that if we really needed an influx of bodies we’d just change the standards.

galaxy flyer

You said, and I quote, , where did you get that 30-40% figure? Has the Pentagon released it, is it based on your unit population or is it just a WAG out of thin air? You seem to have it as fact, so I’d like you to post it.

Frankly, as a former commander, I firmly believe the military would do no such thing, just as they are opposed to the draft. The services need intelligen and motivated people that are physically fit for potentially arduous duty and demonstrate integrity and perseverance.


GF

KA350Driver

Sure, at least 30-40% of the military doesn’t meet my standards for what I consider a professional or competent soldier/sailor/airman/Marine. I could probably google the results of people who barely pass the PFT with just a third class(or whatever the equivalent of barely passing is in all the services). Because the bare minimum standards are too low, so if you are barely meeting the current bare minimum then you suck and aren’t fit for the military.The military has a long and illustrious history of lowering standards. We can talk about the lowered standards for females or how standards were lowered during the hieght of the Iraq war or the Vietnam war. Hell during WWII if you had a pulse and two arms and two legs you were going to serve, you didn’t even have to be 18. Trust me, the top brass have exactly 0 qualms about lowering standards to get what the want/think they need.

galaxy flyer

But, it’s NOT your standards, it’s the services standards that matter. I’ll ask again, where is the 30-40% number come from?


GF

KA350Driver

I qualified my statement with “If I had my way” and then explained where my number came from. It’s not my fault the military standards are sub par.

galaxy flyer

I think we crossed on your edit. I don’t disagree on how standards were lowered during wartime, but there is a cost for doing so and it’s recognized. Our casualty rate during WW II was far worse than anything sustainable in today’s world, in part due to the lowered standards. And, for pilot training, there has not been lowered standards in some time. Even in WW II, pilots were washed out or selected for non-combat.

GF

KA350Driver

My apologies, I thought we were discussing the military as a whole. I agree Pilot standards have remained high. But I think that’s mostly due to the fact that there are still plenty of young kids who want to fly for the military so they can afford to be picky for that career field. Same goes for special operations troops, although those aren’t what they used to be either. It’s simply a supply and demand issue, not unlike what the airlines are facing right now.

galaxy flyer

I’d agree with you there on how standards have been held in flight ops. It is supply and demand and the perceived risk of not meeting manning versus lowering standards.

We’re talking changing standards, we agree; but I wouldn’t say today 30-40% of those serving are factually failing to meet physical standards.

GF

KA350Driver

Yes, I’m saying that they fail to meet my physical standards. If I had my way of course.