Indian Air Force to Have Women Fighter Pilots Soon, says Air Chief Arup Raha

[ayesha.a]

An example of their lack of dexterity is obvious when an untrained male off the street, will have greater grip strength and agility than 95% of highly trained female athletes.

Source for this claim, please? Especially the "95%" part?

The US can afford to throw money away on politically correct idiocy. Can India?

Can China? Can Pakistan? Can Eritrea? Can Ethiopia? (Ethipoia's Capt Aster Tolossa flew a flanker, and recorded the Su-27's first air to air kill - interestingly, against another Russian stalwart, the formidable Mig-29UB.)

If countries like Ethiopea, with a GDP less than that of many cities and most states of India, can "afford" female fighter pilots, there is no reason India cannot.

There may be reasonable arguments against induction of female fighter pilots. But affordability is not one of them. Your phrasing suggests that only the US of A can afford such "luxuries". The fact is that poorer countries than India, including Asian and African ones, have fielded women in those roles.

 

[EAK]

 

[knight11]

Pakistan had female fighter pilots way back some years ago, how come India didn't have them ????

It was because IAF doctrine don't want to send them to the enemy controlled areas aka combat zones to avoid POW crisis of the country women officer. However womens could fly transport planes, which mostly flies in safe zones. Not only IAF, even IA don't deployed women army officers in forward combat zones.

Can China? Can Pakistan? Can Eritrea? Can Ethiopia? (Ethipoia's Capt Aster Tolossa flew a flanker, and recorded the Su-27's first air to air kill - interestingly, against another Russian stalwart, the formidable Mig-29UB.)

If countries like Ethiopea, with a GDP less than that of many cities and most states of India, can "afford" female fighter pilots, there is no reason India cannot.

There may be reasonable arguments against induction of female fighter pilots. But affordability is not one of them. Your phrasing suggests that only the US of A can afford such "luxuries". The fact is that poorer countries than India, including Asian and African ones, have fielded women in those roles.

Where does the the GDP or India afford female fighter pilot comes into this, read the above reason. Now the countries like Israel and the US who have active female combatant, do you want the Indian female officers to be put the similar criteria as compared to the male counterpart and recieve same training . Should India forces remove all relaxation of exercise or training and make it even for both male or female combatants, or you feel that females should be given some relaxation of the physical exercise during selection on the gender basis. Question is simple you think female are equivalent to male, then why not compete with the male in equal competition basis--- Armed forces won't have any problem at all.

Well this is the crux of the issue and, to me, the answer is a definitive NO. The US's situation is getting out of control and WILL (actually, already is) detrimentally affect its combat capability across the board. There is talk of letting females in the Special Operations community in the US now which seems like an almost suicidal notion. Not a single female to date has passed though the USMC's officer school (as the bar has not been lowered) despite many trying now and that school is not even meant to be particularly demanding.

As long as the IAF keeps the same standards (down to the most trivial detail) for both males and females then that aspect is covered. That said, I am more skeptical of the operational considerations (or lack thereof) that have gone into making such a decision. India simply isn't in a position to expend vast sums (and we are talking vast) on pilots who will not be able to commit to the 20 year fighter pilot career path (and it would be wrong and, likely, legally untenable to ask a woman to do so) so as to justify such extraordinary expenditure on them.


Once the IAF's fighter stream is opened up to females the IN will face pressure for their (carrier-borne) aviation wing to follow suit and this is where things will get particularly troublesome as the IN's warships are not (presently) designed to house both men and women and especially not female officers (inherently pilots are going to be officers). Retro-fitting this capacity is going to be enormously time consuming and cost-prohibitive and that too for such a limited number of personnel.


In 20 years time, maybe even 10, revisit this decision but right now, when there isn't the funds to equip soldiers with even basic equipment, isn't the time to start PR/feel-good exercises.And this applies more so to the IN wherein they can design their warships to house both men and women from day one.


Let's be honest though, when the (sensationalist) media discuss this issue are they actually going to examine this case on the merits it deserves? Are they going to analyse, in trivial detail, pros and cons of such a move? Of course not. The narrative will be framed in such a way that anyone even remotely questioning the move to allow females into the fighter stream are bigoted sexists.


Having said that, I do not doubt there are some women capable enough of being very able pilots (both military and civilian), will their numbers be, proportionally, high amongst their gender as compared to males? No. But this is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.


One further point I would add does not relate to either physical ability or training considerations but something highly intangible- unit cohesion. From what I have been able to gather (from first hand accounts of such experience) mixed military units ALWAYS have cohesion issues relating to fraternisation and all such inherent tensions that go along with such conditions. I'm not sure about the USAF's experience with their fighter stream but the US Army, US Navy and Marine Corps have all had great difficulties in this context. Women have had to be sent home mid tour (either in Iraq/Afghanistan or from a ship deployment) for being pregnant and this has direct effects on morale, unit cohesion and operational capability.




The fact of the matter is that a 100% male military (when it comes to combat arms, no doubt females can perform exceptionally in all other fields) is going to be MANY times (hard to quantify but a conservative estimate would be 5-6 times more) capable than a mixed military. This is simply a result of millions of years of evolution and hundreds of thousands of years of our anthropology. Men were (until VERY recently in historical terms) hunter gatherers and warriors and this lives with us today.

A nice written post. +1
A simple question how much money is spend on training and creating a pilot, and what if Women asked for the leave for pregnancy or early leaving the armed forces on the ground of family problem and the situation when female combatant is in POW situation e.g like fl leutanant Nachiketa type.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Source for this claim, please? Especially the "95%" part?

Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. - PubMed - NCBI

Sure.

Specifically pages 415 to 421.

I can cite multiple further sources for the massive psychomotor advantages that males possess over females.

Can China? Can Pakistan? Can Eritrea? Can Ethiopia? (Ethipoia's Capt Aster Tolossa flew a flanker, and recorded the Su-27's first air to air kill - interestingly, against another Russian stalwart, the formidable Mig-29UB.)

If countries like Ethiopea, with a GDP less than that of many cities and most states of India, can "afford" female fighter pilots, there is no reason India cannot.

There may be reasonable arguments against induction of female fighter pilots. But affordability is not one of them. Your phrasing suggests that only the US of A can afford such "luxuries". The fact is that poorer countries than India, including Asian and African ones, have fielded women in those roles.

Two matters;

1) Black women have testosterone levels and psychomotor ability closer to the average man than any other race.

2) I have no idea why those countries are undertaking such a foolhardy symbol of 'progress' but the fact that they are does not indicate that India should too.

Affordability certainly is one of the factors that discount women's ability to contribute towards fighter missions. Sure out of every 200 male candidates for fighter pilots that make it in, there may be a few women that also make the cut. However in order to situate these women in the hierarchy of the organisation, massive investment will need to be made in everything from accommodation/sizing of seats/re-training medical staff/etc.

Then there is the fact that women tend to spend less time in a profession than men. Far less. They take more leave, get pregnant, work less hours and can cause emotional strife in a primarily male workforce. It is simply uneconomical by any definition of the word.

The fact that is even being argued is only a further indicator of how far we have fallen from a society that values logic over all. Feels over reals as they say.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...women-pilots/article7805667.ece?homepage=true

Women officers of the Indian Navy marching during the 66th Republic Day Parade at Rajpath in New Delhi. Photo: S. Subramanium
Days after the Indian Air Force announced that it will induct women as fighter pilots, the Navy has decided to allow women pilots in various streams. However, for now they will be shore-based till necessary infrastructural needs are addressed. The Army and Navy are also looking into the issue of appointing women in combat roles.

“All flying areas in the Navy will be opened for women except where it requires staying overnight on ships like carriers and so on,” Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said while interacting with the media after addressing the Naval Commanders Conference which began on Monday. “We want to give women equal status as long as there are no logistical, infrastructure and training issues.”

In a major decision at altering the status quo in the male dominated military, the Defence Ministry had last week announced that by June 2017 the first batch of women fighter pilots would be serving the Air Force.

On the issue of Permanent Commission (PC) to women in the Navy, Mr. Parrikar observed that there was “no gender bias” in the Navy. Last month, in a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court granted PC for women and pulled up the Navy and the Defence Ministry for “sexist bias” to block women’s progress.

Clarifying that the 1991 Order on PC was gender neutral, Mr. Parrikar said that it only stated that there can be no PC for Short Service Commission (SSC) officers. He added that in 2008, PC was granted for women officers in three streams — education, law and construction.

New maritime strategy

On the occasion of the Naval Commanders Conference, the Navy unveiled a new maritime strategy, changing it in tune with “perspectives and challenges”. We will be aggressive in defending our interests, said Mr. Parrikar in response to a question. The current Maritime Doctrine was promulgated in 2009 but the dynamics in the Indian Ocean Region have vastly changed since.

 

[ayesha.a]

Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. - PubMed - NCBI

Sure.

Specifically pages 415 to 421.

I can cite multiple further sources for the massive psychomotor advantages that males possess over females.



Two matters;

1) Black women have testosterone levels and psychomotor ability closer to the average man than any other race.

2) I have no idea why those countries are undertaking such a foolhardy symbol of 'progress' but the fact that they are does not indicate that India should too.

Affordability certainly is one of the factors that discount women's ability to contribute towards fighter missions. Sure out of every 200 male candidates for fighter pilots that make it in, there may be a few women that also make the cut. However in order to situate these women in the hierarchy of the organisation, massive investment will need to be made in everything from accommodation/sizing of seats/re-training medical staff/etc.

Then there is the fact that women tend to spend less time in a profession than men. Far less. They take more leave, get pregnant, work less hours and can cause emotional strife in a primarily male workforce. It is simply uneconomical by any definition of the word.

The fact that is even being argued is only a further indicator of how far we have fallen from a society that values logic over all. Feels over reals as they say.

For one thing, the testosterone levels in the body has nothing to do with abilities as a fighter pilot. If you are trying to link testosterone and aggression and flying abilities, that is rather tenous. I would say the samee for grip strength too, I'm not sure how that translates into a better fighter piloting ability - how much strength does one need to handle a throttle and stick anyway?

I would agree about the economics with respect to female foot soldiers, or army officers in combat branches. Too few women would qualify to justify a separate investment for women. But there are women serving in the signals, engineering and similar regiments, where their abilities are on par with male officers. (Gathering SIGINT, for example.)

Here is why affordability is not really important for fighter pilots - how many fighter pilots are there in the first place? Not a million, like the army's soldiers. The number is in the few thousands. Maybe even lesser, since we are only talking about fighter pilots. The total number of fighter aircrafts we have is around 650. In a given airbase, how many personnel are fighter pilots, and how many are ground crew, technicians etc? Having a couple of women fighter pilots does not add any economic burden, because no separate training, housing etc has to be creaed for them. (Remember that there are women officers and non-fighter pilots already.)

Flying fighter jets is the job of a very few. Having one or two women among ten or so men fighter pilots in a base with a few hundred other officers and airmen is not a problem. If transport pilots, helicopter pilots etc are already living there, why can't a fighter pilot or two?

So, to sum up:

1) Flying fighter jets is more about flying the machine and operating all the sensors and electronics, and not about pure physical strength. There is no reason why a physically fit woman cannot do it. As opposed to an army soldier who has to carry 20 kg of combat load and go on patrols.

2) In an airbase that has women officers, adding one or two women fighter pilots doesn't hurt, or cost money. Unlike adding a woman's battalion in a brigade.

2) I have no idea why those countries are undertaking such a foolhardy symbol of 'progress' but the fact that they are does not indicate that India should too.

1) It's not about "progress" - it's about equal opportunity for equally talented people, especially when it does not cause other economic burdens.

2) If you have no idea why those countries are doing something, and given the fact that it isn't just those countries, but a lot more, maybe you are missing something that they aren't? The list of countries that allow women fighter pilots is quite large, and includes rich, middle income and poor countries, Christian/secular and muslim countries. If so many countries, many of which are not known for "progress" in these matters (UAE for example), have allowed fighter pilots, then maybe there is more to it than meets the eye, wouldn't you say?

 

[kbd-raaf]

For one thing, the testosterone levels in the body has nothing to do with abilities as a fighter pilot. If you are trying to link testosterone and aggression and flying abilities, that is rather tenous. I would say the samee for grip strength too, I'm not sure how that translates into a better fighter piloting ability - how much strength does one need to handle a throttle and stick anyway?

I would agree about the economics with respect to female foot soldiers, or army officers in combat branches. Too few women would qualify to justify a separate investment for women. But there are women serving in the signals, engineering and similar regiments, where their abilities are on par with male officers. (Gathering SIGINT, for example.)

Here is why affordability is not really important for fighter pilots - how many fighter pilots are there in the first place? Not a million, like the army's soldiers. The number is in the few thousands. Maybe even lesser, since we are only talking about fighter pilots. The total number of fighter aircrafts we have is around 650. In a given airbase, how many personnel are fighter pilots, and how many are ground crew, technicians etc? Having a couple of women fighter pilots does not add any economic burden, because no separate training, housing etc has to be creaed for them. (Remember that there are women officers and non-fighter pilots already.)

Flying fighter jets is the job of a very few. Having one or two women among ten or so men fighter pilots in a base with a few hundred other officers and airmen is not a problem. If transport pilots, helicopter pilots etc are already living there, why can't a fighter pilot or two?

So, to sum up:

1) Flying fighter jets is more about flying the machine and operating all the sensors and electronics, and not about pure physical strength. There is no reason why a physically fit woman cannot do it. As opposed to an army soldier who has to carry 20 kg of combat load and go on patrols.

2) In an airbase that has women officers, adding one or two women fighter pilots doesn't hurt, or cost money. Unlike adding a woman's battalion in a brigade.



1) It's not about "progress" - it's about equal opportunity for equally talented people, especially when it does not cause other economic burdens.

2) If you have no idea why those countries are doing something, and given the fact that it isn't just those countries, but a lot more, maybe you are missing something that they aren't? The list of countries that allow women fighter pilots is quite large, and includes rich, middle income and poor countries, Christian/secular and muslim countries. If so many countries, many of which are not known for "progress" in these matters (UAE for example), have allowed fighter pilots, then maybe there is more to it than meets the eye, wouldn't you say?

Testosterone levels are linked with more than just aggression LOL. There are STRONG causative and correlative links between testosterone levels (both in utero and otherwise) to everything from spatial rotation skills, to logic operations, improved financial trading ability, leadership, innovation, etc. I can cite ALL of this.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Grip strength is not the only physical advantage males possess over women. It was simply an off the cuff example. Dexterity, reaction time, hand eye coordination, etc, etc, I could go on.

That comparison was also with an average man. The average pilot is extremely fit, highly physically motivated, etc. They are top 1% of all men. For every 200 men that are able to meet the physical requirements, there will be one woman and I'm being extremely generous.

A physically fit woman is as fit as unfit or barely fit man. Does this mean we should allow them in as well?

Yes, adding smaller ejection seats, lighter equipment, retraining for medical staff, new accommodation, etc is only a small cost. Plus the social risks of having women who will undoubtedly have relationswith servicemen, romantic strife, etc abound.

The US navy experimented with a female naval pilot, this is what happened:
Kara Hultgreen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can give you many anecdotal stories of when I was planning on joining the RAAF and well into their scholarship program where I heard stories about how women are pushed through the training even though they don't meet the requirements. Even so a smaller percentage of female applicants make it through compared to men. Even WITH favoritism.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The US navy experimented with a female naval pilot, this is what happened:
Kara Hultgreen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be fair, the USN now has plenty of female naval aviators (including fighter pilots) and there doesn't seem to be any issue with them. The Kara Hultgreen example illustrates the dangers of tokenism and "pencil whipping" but if women are given the same training and benchmarking as men there is no reason they should be inferior pilots.

 

[kbd-raaf]

To be fair, the USN now has plenty of female naval aviators (including fighter pilots) and there doesn't seem to be any issue with them. The Kara Hultgreen example illustrates the dangers of tokenism and "pencil whipping" but if women are given the same training and benchmarking as men there is no reason they should be inferior pilots.

That is true. In fact one point that @ayesha.a has not brought up is the fact that women generally have lower centres of gravity, which helps with dealing with the high G's of combat flying.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Women cannot take part in all fields of combat duty. Even US bars women from joining special forces. In infantry a soldier will have to carry his buddy for kilometers. A US soldiers kit weighs at least 100 pounds. An average US soldier say weighs 200 pounds. So in all a human being will have to carry 300 pounds with him. Can a woman do that?

It is good that women are given responsibility but it must be guided by logic and not random thought.

That is true. In fact one point that @ayesha.a has not brought up is the fact that women generally have lower centres of gravity, which helps with dealing with the high G's of combat flying.

I have read that too.