Women fighter pilots: You go, girls!!!
Posted on 11/22/2009 4:17:25 AM PST by myknowledge
The Indian Air Force does not plan to train women to be fighter pilots. Neighboring Pakistan is not much better, even though it has seven female fighter pilots. They fly F-7s, a Chinese version of the Russian MiG-21. None have been in combat yet, despite the heavy use of jet fighter-bombers in nearly a year of fighting in the tribal territories. There, the more modern F-16s are doing most of the bombing of Taliban targets. The Indian air force leaders believe that it costs so much (over $2 million) to train a fighter pilot, that they air force needs 10-15 years of active service to get that investment back. But women tend to leave the air force to have children, thus making them much more expensive fighter pilots than their male counterparts. So the Indian leadership is holding off on female fighter pilots.
Women flying Pakistani F-7s are a very recent development, part of a program that only began six years ago. Pakistan is not alone using women as fighter pilots, with China graduating its first 16 female fighter pilots this year. There are already 52 women flying non-combat aircraft, and another 545 in training. India has female military pilots, who only operate helicopters and transports.
All this began with the success of female military pilots in the United States over the last three decades. This led to an increasing number of other countries are moving in that direction. The reason is simple, many of the women who go through flight training turn out to have better flying skills than the average male pilot.
All the nations considering female fighter pilots, are having a hard time keeping male pilots in uniform. Too many of the men depart for more lucrative, and less stressful, careers as commercial pilots. Women may not be the solution. Currently, only about half of Indian female officers stay in past their initial five year contract. Indian women, even military pilots, are under tremendous social and family pressure to marry. Those that do may still be pilots, but married women expected to have children. The Indian Air Force provides its female officers with ten months leave for this, six months during pregnancy, and four months after delivery. The air force does all this because pilots are very expensive to train. Fuel costs the same everywhere, as are spare parts. So what India may save in lower salaries, is not enough. A good pilot costs over half a million dollars for training expenses, and requires over five years flying experience to become effective in a first line fighter (the Su-30 for India). It's all that expensive aviation fuel that pushes the final "cost of a fighter pilot" to over $2 million. Many women are willing to take up the challenge. But they have already heard from their peers in Western air force, that motherhood and piloting can be a very exhausting combination.
Worldwide, women are increasingly part of the military. In many nations, over ten percent of military personnel are female. A century ago, it was under one percent (and most of those were nurses and other medical personnel.) More women are in uniform now because there aren't enough qualified men, especially for many of the technical jobs armed forces now have to deal with.
Islamic nations have higher illiteracy rates overall, and very high rates for women. These nations have a severe shortage of technically trained people. Those women that do get an education in Islamic cultures tend to be very bright and able. So there's a need, and a solution close at hand. But because of those religious restrictions, and the generally very macho attitudes in Islamic nations, there will never be as many women in uniform as are needed. This means that Islamic armed forces will continue to come up short when it comes to maintaining and using military technology. The future of military operations is more technology, so you can see where this is leading. No wonder Islamic radicals want to go back to the past. Unfortunately, the non-Moslem world is not inclined to join them. Taking a knife to a gun fight doesn't work.
Allowing women to be combat pilots eventually leads to women commanding combat units. Once women were allowed to fly combat aircraft, it was only a matter of time before some of them rose to command positions. Several American female combat pilots have achieved command positions, and also managed to handle marriage and motherhood as well.
Women fighter pilots: You go, girls!!!
If men and women are on average equally skilled at flying, 50% of the women will be better than the average male pilot.
I hate sentences like this.
Forbidden? Forbidden WHERE?
I read the article.
Forbidden WHERE?
I wish hack writers were forbidden.
Forbidden in India. The Indian Air Force may be a top-rate air force, but is reluctant to employ female fighter jocks.
It says they are “holding off”...
That’s not the same as “forbidden”.
Sorry. It just seems to me the title is written more for invoking hysteria than a clear description of the situation.
As an ex-fighter pilot, I can attest to the fact that women can fly as well as men; however, they are terrible at throwing their glasses into the fireplace at the O’Club during Happy Hour.
A fighter pilot’s breadfast: a cigarette, a cup of coffee, and a good puke. Women just don’t handle it as well as men.
“What really makes a good fighter pilot” - Another study that will never be funded due to PC considerations.
50% is many of them.
Quite correct. My point.
But the implication of the sentence is that “many” female pilots being better than the “average” male pilot is an unexpected result.
In fact, if even 25% of female pilots were better than the average male pilot, this could still be accurately presented as many women being better than the average man. Despite the fact that it would also mean the average (either mean or median) woman is considerably worse than the average man.
My objection is to the misuse of terms to make an intentionally misleading point. The classic is, “Most inner-city blacks (or Muslims, or mentally ill people, etc.) are not dangerous to others.”
This ignores that “most” means 50.1%, which makes the statement technically accurate even if 49.9% of the group in question IS dangerous to others. Which most of us would consider a rather relevant datum.
The relevant question is not whether “most” of a group are dangerous, it’s the relative danger posed by group A as compared to group B. Using the “most” terminology is an intentional effort to blur this distinction.
Just making these types of observations is strictly verboten in the US. Cost analysis is not permitted where gender equality is the issue.
At least the Pakistanis only have a handful of female fighter jocks that could take up half a squadron.
I have the luxury of remembering when pilots were all males, which many today do not have.
The Soviet VVS during WWII had the most female aviators. Two of them even became double aces. Just as capable as their male comrades.
I miss the good ‘ole days.
Now get used to today's world.
Don't be scared. They're still the majority in any air force today.
During the war that created our greatest (American) ace in history with his 40 kills, the German pilots managed to shoot down a few Soviet planes as well, here is a beginning list of WWII's greatest Aces.
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.