USAF Furtherly Lowering Their Standards

[PsihoKekec]

To ensure mission success, screening at all levels was intense. The washout rate for flight school in the 1980s was high—just three out of every four students got their wings. And the demand for proficiency elevated with every level of training beyond. A few more washed out of fighter lead-in training, front-line fighter training, and even Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun).

That began to change at the end of the Cold War. With the threat of a peer-level fight seemingly behind them, senior Air Force leaders began to relax service standards. Over time, their drive for efficiencies all but eliminated screening at every training level beyond flight school—and even there, things began to change.

Pilot training graduation rates rocketed up from 75 percent in the 1980s to 90 percent in the ‘90s.

From 2016 through 2019, that graduation rate averaged 96 percent, with several classes each year graduating everyone who entered. And that hefty four-percent washout rate included factors like a student's health issues as well as ethical and legal shortcomings.

Thankfully, the service’s pilot candidate selection method has remained relatively constant over the years. While most selection considerations revolve around physical standards, there are two additional factors that actually help sustain some modicum of quality for those who get their wings: a candidate’s college grade point average (GPA) and previous flying experience.

Academics are a big part of training. Those who struggle digesting system and procedural details have a hard time applying them in the air. On top of that, the academic demands of flight school are relatively easy compared to the operational systems and procedures they will encounter beyond flight school.

Previous flying experience matters as well. A previously demonstrated aptitude for flying almost inevitably translates into elevated performance at flight school.

But now, the service is about to remove both those factors from its flight school candidate screening process because it wants to increase the diversity of its rated force.

The Air Force Is About To Lower Its Already Low Standards

So in short, due to technological edge over the rest of the world, penny pinching and the fact that they mostly work as bomb trucks, USAF relaxed it's training standards once the Cold War ended. But with the chance of near-peer conflict increasing they are not raising standards, but lowering them instead, this time in the name of diversity.

 

[paulobrito]

Great results ahead for sure.

 

[DarthOne]

Oh for the love of...

See, it's stuff like this that makes me want to cut money to our military and focus it on fixing up our country instead of playing pay pig and Empire for the corporate globalists. The military needs to stop thinking they can keep throwing money away with idiotic ideas. Also, killing the SJW nonsense at home will help strangle it before this stupidy becomes even more widespread.

Besides, it's not the cold war- we don't really have anyone near our level, the ones that are antagonistic to us tend to antagonize everyone else too. Never mind that they can be safely neutralized by other means than warfare, be it via trade restrictions or just staying out of the middle east. And it not like we're ever going to see a World War II-style conflict again, without it going nuclear, in which case, everyone is fucked.

 

[Zachowon]

The Aor Force training is actually really good.
And they have standards in order for you to get into the program anyway.
Like physical. Can't be too tall.

Oh for the love of...

See, it's stuff like this that makes me want to cut money to our military and focus it on fixing up our country instead of playing pay pig and Empire for the corporate globalists. The military needs to stop thinking they can keep throwing money away with idiotic ideas. Also, killing the SJW nonsense at home will help strangle it before this stupidy becomes even more widespread.

Besides, it's not the cold war- we don't really have anyone near our level, the ones that are antagonistic to us tend to antagonize everyone else too. Never mind that they can be safely neutralized by other means than warfare, be it via trade restrictions or just staying out of the middle east. And it not like we're ever going to see a World War II-style conflict again, without it going nuclear, in which case, everyone is fucked.

China and Russia are considered peer by US Military standards.

But cutting our funding does more harm then good.
Because the military will cut people over things.

 

[ATP]

Great results ahead for sure.

I am only amateur,so i always thought that air force with the same technology but better trained pilots win - but if american commanders think otherwise, maybe really USAF would win thanks to power of lgbt.

 

[DarthOne]

China and Russia are considered peer by US Military standards.

But cutting our funding does more harm then good.
Because the military will cut people over things.

Not by logistics or by numbers they aren't. And again, if we actually are forced to go to full war with either, nukes fly and everyone dies. You're stuck in cold war thinking.

That is an issue and something that would have to be addressed, ideally by making more jobs at home in the USA and so on. Besides, I was thinking more in terms of 'no, US Navy, you don't need 10 aircraft carriers, you can make due with 7.' Basically, cut down the budget by 10-15% and stick hard and fast limits on how much money they get.

 

[Zachowon]

Not by logistics or by numbers they aren't. And again, if we actually are forced to go to full war with either, nukes fly and everyone dies. You're stuck in cold war thinking.

That is an issue and something that would have to be addressed, ideally by making more jobs at home in the USA and so on. Besides, I was thinking more in terms of 'no, US Navy, you don't need 10 aircraft carriers, you can make due with 7.' Basically, cut down the budget by 10-15% and stick hard and fast limits on how much money they get.

No,
I'm stuck with modern day combat peer to peer thinking.
Nukes won't fly, and they are no longer a major deterrence with the capabilities to shoot then out of the sky. They are still on but growing lesser.

No, we need 10 carriers.
Getting rid of carriers is the stupidest thing you can do.
You are cutting battle groups of thier air power.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Having 10 active carriers is the bare minimum we require for what the powers that be demand out of the USN ie 3 carriers on forward deployment at any one time. With 11 it's much easier and with 12 like the USN wants having 4 ships on deployment is possible about roughly half the time

 

[DarthOne]

Having 10 active carriers is the bare minimum we require for what the powers that be demand out of the USN ie 3 carriers on forward deployment at any one time. With 11 it's much easier and with 12 like the USN wants having 4 ships on deployment is possible about roughly half the time

And what powers that be are those? And why should the American people have to pay for another nation’s sake? That’s Wilsonian nonsense that’s cost America too much in lives and money already.

 

[Zachowon]

And what powers that be are those? And why should the American people have to pay for another nation’s sake? That’s Wilsonian nonsense that’s cost America too much in lives and money already.

Because if we cut our funding we lose a lot of stuff.
Stuff we need like man power first and foremost

 

[Knowledgeispower]

And what powers that be are those? And why should the American people have to pay for another nation’s sake? That’s Wilsonian nonsense that’s cost America too much in lives and money already.

The longstanding policy set by both the DOD and Congress to have at least one carrier in the Med the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Its been a policy since the frickin 50s and has been a exceedingly useful foreign policy tool

 

[DarthOne]

The longstanding policy set by both the DOD and Congress to have at least one carrier in the Med the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Its been a policy since the frickin 50s.

Okay, and why is that? No one is going to close those without a major war going on, and if they want to fight it out, I say let them. Let those countries protect their own sphere of influence. Its not like we have to worry about pirates with anything bigger then machine guns.

The USA at least needs less reliance on the global trade network anyway.

 

[Zachowon]

Okay, and why is that? No one is going to close those without a major war going on, and if they want to fight it out, I say let them. Let those countries protect their own sphere of influence. Its not like we have to worry about pirates with anything bigger then machine guns.

The USA at least needs less reliance on the global trade network anyway.

Because we have to wait for the rest of the world to get better military

 

[DarthOne]

Because we have to wait for the rest of the world to get better military

I'd say cutting back on our military would only help encourage that in that case.

 

[ATP]

The longstanding policy set by both the DOD and Congress to have at least one carrier in the Med the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf. Its been a policy since the frickin 50s and has been a exceedingly useful foreign policy tool

Thanks for info.But now USA do not need carrier in the Med,becouse there is no soviet fleet to made troubles any more.Besides,with anti-ship missiles now made,Med is not safe for any bigger ship.
So, 2 for Pacyfic and Indian is enough - which mean 6 in total.

 

[Zachowon]

I'd say cutting back on our military would only help encourage that in that case.

No, they would just got to a country that will.
Except France if Le Pen wins.
They will build up thier own

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Thanks for info.But now USA do not need carrier in the Med,becouse there is no soviet fleet to made troubles any more.Besides,with anti-ship missiles now made,Med is not safe for any bigger ship.
So, 2 for Pacyfic and Indian is enough - which mean 6 in total.

Not really. Look having 11 carriers is also a matter of enabling you to have a carrier tasked to training new pilots and deck crew; one undergoing Nuclear refueling/deep refit, three undergoing routine yard time, three undergoing preparations for deployment and the last 3 on deployment at least on average. It also enables a surge forward of the ships preparing to be deployed and the ship assigned to training if need be. Also it enables the only yard that builds carriers to be constantly making them at replacement rate ie roughly one every 4.75 years since carriers last just over 50 years which enables the supply chain and skills needed for carrier production to stay intact and not suffer the effects of the feast and starve cycle. Honestly if you're going to make America more isolationist you wouldn't shrink the Navy, the Army and Marines would get cut followed by the airforce but to a lesser extent.

Also the ship in the med is well positioned to deal with crap that involves the western part of the middle east to mention North Africa and the Balkans which is huge from a foreign policy perspective.

 

[DarthOne]

Not really. Look having 11 carriers is also a matter of enabling you to have a carrier tasked to training new pilots and deck crew; one undergoing Nuclear refueling/deep refit, three undergoing routine yard time, three undergoing preparations for deployment and the last 3 on deployment at least on average. It also enables a surge forward of the ships preparing to be deployed and the ship assigned to training if need be. Also it enables the only yard that builds carriers to be constantly making them at replacement rate ie roughly one every 4.75 years since carriers last just over 50 years which enables the supply chain and skills needed for carrier production to stay intact and not suffer the effects of the feast and starve cycle. Honestly if you're going to make America more isolationist you wouldn't shrink the Navy, the Army and Marines would get cut followed by the airforce but to a lesser extent.

Also the ship in the med is well positioned to deal with crap that involves the western part of the middle east to mention North Africa and the Balkans which is huge from a foreign policy perspective.

Now, see you should have led in with this. Still, I recon we could cut the carriers down to about 9.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

A weapon that is so expensive you cant risk it in battle isnt very useful. Aircraft carriers are useful mainly against foes who cant fight back anyways.

 

[ATP]

Not really. Look having 11 carriers is also a matter of enabling you to have a carrier tasked to training new pilots and deck crew; one undergoing Nuclear refueling/deep refit, three undergoing routine yard time, three undergoing preparations for deployment and the last 3 on deployment at least on average. It also enables a surge forward of the ships preparing to be deployed and the ship assigned to training if need be. Also it enables the only yard that builds carriers to be constantly making them at replacement rate ie roughly one every 4.75 years since carriers last just over 50 years which enables the supply chain and skills needed for carrier production to stay intact and not suffer the effects of the feast and starve cycle. Honestly if you're going to make America more isolationist you wouldn't shrink the Navy, the Army and Marines would get cut followed by the airforce but to a lesser extent.

Also the ship in the med is well positioned to deal with crap that involves the western part of the middle east to mention North Africa and the Balkans which is huge from a foreign policy perspective.

Logical.But considering new anti-ship missiles,Med is still too risky for any bigger surface warship.Submarine with Tomahawsk would be safe and still capable of delivering punishment to anybody who missbehave.