'Women should be allowed to fly fighter aircraft': IAF

phoenix80

Banned
(Andhra Pradesh): Having imparted training to female pilots for flying transport aircraft and choppers for 15 years, senior IAF officials and researchers now strongly believe the time has come to open the doors of fighter cockpits to women cadets as they have been consistently performing at par with their male counterparts.
Till date, female cadres have been kept out of flying fighter aircraft while the other two wings, helicopter and transport, were open to them.
"I would definitely recommend that girls should be inducted for fighter aircraft. In every batch we have girl cadets performing at par with boys and I see no reason why they should not be considered for fighter cockpits," said Group Captain Chetan Bali, head of the flying faculty at premier Air Force Academy in Dindigul near Hyderabad.
Bali, who has more than 5,300 hours of flying experience however, said the decision has to be taken at the highest level.
"We are waiting for IAF to take the decision and I hope it will take place very soon," he said.
Echoing the view, the Chief Research officer Group Captain VN Jha, at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine in Bangalore, said initial research on girl's physical ability on handling fighter aircraft has been completed and IAM is now waiting government's go ahead on allowing advanced research on it.
"Some amount of work has already been done. It is only the advanced research that will be required. We are in the stage of forming that sort of research. But government will have to give us the necessary go ahead," Jha said.
Jha, the chief researcher at the premier institute, which imparts training on space related disorientation to the wannabe pilots and conducts research on physical abilities of pilots, also believes women are equally capable of handling advanced fighter jets such as Sukhoi, MIGs and Mirage aircraft.
Head of the Air Force Academy in Dindigul Air Vice-Marshal Dhiraj Kukreja said IAF needs efficient pilots for advanced jet fighters and if Government decides to allow female pilots on fighter cockpits, AFA will train them accordingly.
"If the decision is taken, we will train them accordingly. They have not been found wanting," he said.
After a year's training on the HPT-32 aircraft at AFA, men flying cadets appear before a "trifurcation board" whereas women cadets appear before a "bifurcation board" and the boards after analysing their performance decide on stage II training for the cadets on fighter, choppers and transport aircraft.
There is a trifurcation board for boys and bifurcation board for girls as female flying cadets are not considered for fighter squadrons.
The trifurcation board selects the better performers among boys who score 6 out of 10 in each subjects, including flying sorties, for fighter squadrons.
Bali said for the last couple of years girls in every batch have been scoring more than 6 in each subjects but are not considered for fighter cockpits.
"Yes, it pains me and I think we are just few steps away from allowing them," he said.
A senior IAF official, wished not to named, said it costs around Rs 10 crore (approximately 2.27 million US $) on each fighter pilot and there are apprehension that it takes two to three years after child birth before they gain full physical strength and that might be the reason behind not allowing them into fighter cockpits besides the question of what would happen if they are caught in enemy countries.
For Flight cadet Debolina, who hails from Kolkata and undergoing one year's basic training at AFA, questioning the physical ability of girl cadets does not hold water as in many countries women are flying fighter jets at par with men.
"I do not believe in these opinions as women have been flying consistently well in so many countries," she said.
She said they were told at AFA that talks are going on in IAF headquarter on considering girls for fighter aircraft. "We have been told that talks are going on in Air Force headquarters on allowing us for fighters," she said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1452557.cms
 
I can't see any reason why not. Every thing is powered operated you don't need a great deal of strength, and I would doubt a womans bravery or skill.
 
In India's particular case, I see no reason not to allow women to fly. Some other countries such as Israel or Taiwan, I am not sure if they should go that route?
 
In India's particular case, I see no reason not to allow women to fly. Some other countries such as Israel or Taiwan, I am not sure if they should go that route?

Israel has, and has had for some time, female Infantry. I have zero doubt that they already have female pilots, as well.

I agree 100% with LeEnfield.
 
I see no problem with any female service except for in capacities that require brute force and/or exceptional stamina.

There has been studies made that this is where the females come up short.

I would have thought resisting Gforce over time would require some sort of stamina.. I was obviously wrong if europe has female fighterpilots.

//KJ.
 
I never considered the G-Force aspect of it. Of course, with today's long-range weapons, close-in areal fighting (dog fighting) iis more a forgotten bragging right than it is a realistic possibility on the modern battlefield.

I'd love to hear what some REAL "fighter" pilots think about the G-Force aspect.

I wonder what rigors an F-16 driver faces in a realistic combat scenario that a female of the same job title may struggle with.

This is turning into a really interesting conversation.
 
Opponents of women finally getting to fly combat aircraft, and some male pilots, bandied this about in trying to prevent women from flying the newer, faster, aircraft - most of which were designated as combat planes.

The reality is that women can counteract G-forces because their physiology makes them more tolerant of G-forces than men.

G-forces push down on a body; they overcome the ability of the heart to pump oxygenated blood upward into the brain. Blood begins to pool in the lower extremities, while blood circulation to the head is reduced. When blood circulation to the head is sufficiently reduced, the oxygen supply to the brain becomes insufficient.

Height, not strength or gender, is the most negative factor in a pilot's ability to tolerate G stress. Because women have a smaller body mass the shorter distance between their heart and brain makes it easier for them to counteract the G-forces.

 
Now THAT makes sense.

So, in essence, only the stigma attached to females, combined with a man's natural inclination as protector, has predominately been used to refuse females service in actual "combat" aircraft roles.

And that's a damn shame. I can see (and argue, so don't start) the point of refusing them entrance into Combat Arms - the degree of physical strain on the skeleton alone is enough to actually make them a deficit on the front lines where everyone is almost always carrying twice as much, twice as fast, twice as long as they really should be.

But if your analysis of the G-Force curve is accurate, then it only makes sense that the particular role of "Fighter Pilot" be as equally open to females as it is to males. In fact, maybe more so if it can be stated without ambiguity that they are LESS prone to oxygen deficiency in High-G maneuvers.
 
So what you are saying is that there would be no difference in abdominal strength between a male at 175 cm and a female at 175 cm and even if there was that would have no impact at fighting Gforces over time?

I have a friend that flies JAS 39 for the SWE AF and I saw his raptured bloodvessels in the back and abdominalarea after having an emergency where fighting high Gforces over time became an issue.

I should tell him to loose lenght instead of going to the gym...haha

Cool facts, I had no clue.

//KJ.
 
So why do we still have "manned" aircraft at all? So much money wrapped in 1 bundle for a 100K missile to burn up?

The technology is there, but then the jobs for the boys won't be!!
 
The average Air Force mission is divided into tasks that take hours, minutes and seconds. A computer is better at split-second reaction and hours-long repetitive functions. But tasks that take minutes require judgment. And here is where the UCAV hits a snag. In an unstructured environment like a chaotic battlefield, UCAV's would have to make decisions, distinguishing between friend and foe, reconfiguring moving targets or even aborting missions. For that reason a human finger will have to be on the trigger, even if that finger is connected to a person sitting hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the aircraft.

But the emergence of unmanned fighting machines has tactical, moral and political consequences that will become ever more apparent as the technology develops

Such technology will have the effect of first sending the enemy farther underground. Adversaries may try to look less and less like the military in the future, driving civilian vehicles, hiding their weapons in schools, hospitals and religious institutions and blending into crowds. Counteracting these tactics will necessitate a whole other array of technology, including special cameras that can indicate who in a crowd is carrying a weapon and facial-recognition software that can scan crowds and pick out the known terrorists and military officers.

Adversaries will inevitably figure out new methods of fighting back as well, and the most immediate way they'll do this is by developing better surface-to-air weapons, to knock out not only drones and other unmanned aircraft but perhaps eventually the satellites that make these operations possible.

The spectacle of, lets say, Americans fighting wars with robots runs the risk of reviving the perception of the United States as a cowardly nation unwilling to back up its principles with genuine sacrifice. The ease with which the United States could enter into armed conflicts might initiate a wave of new resentments, good old anti-Americanism mixed with a new, virulent strain of antimodernism. Taking away any chance of the enemy's inflicting losses on the battlefield might also spur a more ominous development.

Adept enemies will search for weaknesses, and if those weaknesses can't be found on the traditional field of battle, that might mean exporting the fight to other places. It could mean coordinated attacks on the civilian population of the United States, and state sponsored terrorism on a scale we have not yet seen.
 
Israel has, and has had for some time, female Infantry. I have zero doubt that they already have female pilots, as well.
The IDF back in the late 1990's made a public statement (not picked up be the liberal American press) that, it is without prejudice against women, the IDF is removing women from front line ground combat. Part of the responsibilities a countries has to its military people is to whatever possible to reduce casualties. The IDF has discovered that sexually integrated ground combat units suffer more casualties than all male units. Women still serve in ground combat units but, just not front-line ground combat units.
The problem is two fold. First young women run slower and therefore are exposed to enemy fire for longer periods of time. Second young men are protective of young women and incur greater casualties. Despite training young men remain more protective of young women than they are of other young men.

The IDF/AF have women flown combat in helos (Apaches, Blackhawks, etc) as well as aggressor fighter pilots in fighters but, flying fighters in combat is exclusively the domain of young men.
Israel is an extreme case, they remember Black Thursday. That was the second day in the Yom Kippur War when SAM-6s and ZSU-23-4s shot down thirty-four fighters and attack aircraft over the Golan Heights, in one afternoon! The IAF feels one distinct reason they prevailed over the Syrian mobile AD, is because the youthful aggressiveness of its pilots. Men can fly combat fighters in the IAF until age twenty-eight! After that they consider a man to be more cautious and use more common sense and will fly a desk for as long as he remains in the IAF!

The US Navy has done studies and one study in particular, evaluated a sexually integrate crew and their effectiveness in situations such as the USS Stark being hit by two Excocets Missile and the USS Samuel B Roberts hitting a sea mine. The conclusion was the high number of young men, their strength and endurance was a critical factor in both ships surviving. That a sexually integrated crews would have led to one if not both ships sinking. The massive number of young men being able to fight a sustained effort for fifteen plus hours was a telling factor in both ships surviving. Again this was anther story that the mass media decided not to cover.

Naddoður, you have some very good points but, when America uses robots and they don't care who thinks what, they are only concerned with saving American lives. This is another example of my machine being able to inflict unacceptable level of casualties upon the enemy. Much like the US air forces (in PGW#1) after destroying the Iraqi AD moved all attack aircraft above 8,000-ft. This greatly reduced the casualties of US forces while annihilating the enemy ground forces. Yes, the Iraqi ground force felt it was gutless but, who cares they loss. Accuracy was less but, survival was far higher and return attacks took care of problems of inaccuracy in the first attack.

There a moral aspect most don't think about, if in making war, one side looses robots while the other side looses people.... will politicians be more willing to get involved in combat rather than trying to solve the problem through negotiations. We have already seen the usage of the Tomahawk Missile as one example of politician's willingness to use a machine to go to war instead of using people.
 
Had a course on human development years ago.

The forces in modern airceaft eventually will eliminate human pilots.
Primarily in fighter types that need speed and maneuverability.

It was taught that the last human fighter pilot will be a short female with high blood pressure.
 
YES! Thank you American men for thinking kindly of my 5'6" short stature but I am proud to fight for my country.
And who cares if I have high blood pressure....I Run my butt off & have the whole "swimming with the dolphins" that will help. ;)
 
Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.
 
Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.

You've never been in a war zone and you have never served with women. If you had, you'd never come up with such nonsense.

It's not whether you are male or female when you are standing in the middle of sh#%&. It's more whether you are mentally strong enough to do what has to be done.

You have a very romantic notion of war. I hope for you that you never get to experience it yourself
 
Can you explain how it's romantic?

I never said that women were spared in wars. I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.

I wish we could say that women are innocent from all these power games. If women were potential fighters, their situation would be worse. Much worse.

I saw videos of Marines in Fallujah, they arrested every male they saw for questioning. Women were somehow spared. They were grouped with children. They didnt leave them with sand bags on their heads in the sun.

And maybe that I'm an idealist. But our modern society thinks that war is like a business. That we should allow women to fight too.

And those who push these issues are just the same people who sent the men to war to make their wives make weapons for them.

I say that war can only exist if it's in auto-defense. And we shouldnt ask our women to protect us. We should be the ones protecting them. It's our duty.

And how serving with women would change my view?
 
Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it.
Tell that to the guy who comes home without arms or legs.

Men go to battle to protect women and children.
In the Middle Ages maybe.

There is only pain and suffering there.
Really; Been there?

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law.
No; then you join the police.

They find no pleasure doing it.
Then why join something you dont like?

The day women will be fighting in the front line
They are already there.

The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.
It must be a joke

Can you explain how it's romantic?

I never said that women were spared in wars. I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.

I wish we could say that women are innocent from all these power games. If women were potential fighters, their situation would be worse. Much worse.

I saw videos of Marines in Fallujah, they arrested every male they saw for questioning. Women were somehow spared. They were grouped with children. They didnt leave them with sand bags on their heads in the sun.

And maybe that I'm an idealist. But our modern society thinks that war is like a business. That we should allow women to fight too.

And those who push these issues are just the same people who sent the men to war to make their wives make weapons for them.

I say that war can only exist if it's in auto-defense. And we shouldnt ask our women to protect us. We should be the ones protecting them. It's our duty.

And how serving with women would change my view?

I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.
Do you know your history??? Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II.

It is simply idiotic what you write

 
Come on man, are you playing with me? I know that women took arms in history. And I know that there is women on the battlefield right now. That's not my point at all.

Well, point by point.

When I was speaking about scars, I meant scars, I dont speak about all the battle injuries.
But what I meant to say, is that culture/society made room to accept men with war injuries. You can even lose an eye in battle, and you will find some chicks to say that it's sexy somehow.

Women dont have this "chance". If a woman have a scar on her face. Just an injury from training, not even in battle... It would be a serious issue for her. It's to show how society dont know how to deal with women as soldiers. Not yet at least.

- Why? I have to fight a war to say that there is nothing good in war?
In war you kill and get killed. Did I miss something?

- Police man or soldier... Same job, different levels. Share if you have a different opinion.

And it would be sad if people went to war to gain something. It would be immoral. Because it's the case, then we should start wars just for the sake of it.

We should wage war only in self-defense.

Now, I know that the situation is messed up. We wage war for power, lands, money, influence, resources... Men and women join the army to make money and serve useless nation and follow corrupt governments...

But we want to reach an ideal situation where people join the military to serve justice and protect innocent people.
If you think that this is a romantic unreachable dream... I dont know what to say. For me it's just normal.
 
Back
Top