# Signing up for RASP at Airborne School/AIT



## Red Exclusive (Jun 30, 2014)

I have seen this countless times, with people saying that at AIT or Airborne School, some slots will be available for soldiers to sign up for RASP. Problem is, none of these people have actually been in the Regiment. So to dispel any rumors, I was wondering, based on YOUR own personal experiences and/or know-how, is it possible for this to happen? And the real question, is it very likely for slots to be open? I've heard it is more likely for openings to be seen at the Basic Airborne Course, but if it makes any difference for AIT, my proposed MOS is 68W, medic. Thank you all in advance!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 30, 2014)

Yes it is possible, guys realize after OSUT that they don't have what it takes and drop their contracts.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 30, 2014)

Not only that, but there's Ranger briefings that are done at Airborne. You volunteer there, they can see about getting you in a upcoming class.


----------



## lancero (Jun 30, 2014)

I did not go to Regt under a contract.  I didn't even have an airborne contract. I was one of only four soldiers in basic training to pass the initial PT test so I got airborne as a reward. I volunteered for RIP at airborne school.  This was one hundred years ago though so things may have changed.

The Army didn't tell my initial duty station I was going to RIP, so I was listed as AWOL for a while and my paychecks stopped coming. Luckily, my SL hooked me up with some cash until it could get sorted out.


----------



## Muppet (Jun 30, 2014)

lancero said:


> I did not go to Regt under a contract.  I didn't even have an airborne contract. I was one of only four soldiers in basic training to pass the initial PT test so I got airborne as a reward. I volunteered for RIP at airborne school.  This was one hundred years ago though so things may have changed.
> 
> The Army didn't tell my initial duty station I was going to RIP, so I was listed as AWOL for a while and my paychecks stopped coming. Luckily, my SL hooked me up with some cash until it could get sorted out.



For fucks sake. Lol.

F.M.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 1, 2014)

Lancero's story is about the norm though. Big army doesn't really pay attention to anything Regiment does unless they can try to take some credit for it and make themselves look good. Otherwise? they give no fucks what goes on behind the fences.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jul 1, 2014)

lancero said:


> I did not go to Regt under a contract.  I didn't even have an airborne contract. I was one of only four soldiers in basic training to pass the initial PT test so I got airborne as a reward. I volunteered for RIP at airborne school.  This was one hundred years ago though so things may have changed.
> 
> The Army didn't tell my initial duty station I was going to RIP, so I was listed as AWOL for a while and my paychecks stopped coming. Luckily, my SL hooked me up with some cash until it could get sorted out.


 
Too funny.  I recall guys getting the chance to volunteer in 1996 when I went through jump school.  I was a lowly 12B back then and was told to fuck off and get a real MOS by a RIP instructor.   I did exactly that in 1999 and went to RIP as a tabless SP4 where my experience was the opposite of Lancero's.  For some reason big Army felt it necessary to start paying me BAS before RIP.  As we were standing in line for chow one of the instructors asked if any of us had any pay issues, to which I said yes, I am still getting separate rats, and was promptly smoked for getting separate rats!


----------



## Ravage (Jul 1, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Lancero's story is about the norm though. Big army doesn't really pay attention to anything Regiment does unless they can try to take some credit for it and make themselves look good. Otherwise? they give no fucks what goes on behind the fences.



One would think the Big Army would be more better of, if they look-up all the good things that go on  in the 75th Regiment.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2014)

Ravage said:


> One would think the Big Army would be more better of, if they look-up all the good things that go on  in the 75th Regiment.



I always think it is funny when people with no institutional knowledge say things like that. Do you know how hard it is to apply policies that work for 3K highly motivated and trained dudes to 500K people?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 1, 2014)

*that aren't nearly as motivated nor trained and on more occasions than they'll admit, refuse/fight to incorporate either into improving themselves as individuals or an organization as a whole...

oh snap, throwing manhole covers around...


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> *that aren't nearly as motivated nor trained and on more occasions than they'll admit refuse/fight to incorporate either into improving themselves as individuals or an organization as a whole...
> 
> oh snap, throwing manhole covers around...



Too difficult to encapsulate those ideas on a PowerPoint slide.


----------



## AWP (Jul 1, 2014)

Ravage said:


> One would think the Big Army would be more better of, if they look-up all the good things that go on  in the 75th Regiment.


 
 So Poland has instituted GROM's "business model" across the rest of the Army? How's that working out? Clearly, it is paying dividends if you can come on here and tell us how we should organize and train.


----------



## Red Exclusive (Jul 1, 2014)

Seems like this thread has gotten a bit hot... Clearly, Ravage could have thought out his response a bit better. But regardless, he meant that Rangers are elite and, with said logic, assumed big army would implement strategies to transition into a force that operates like the 75th. He was paying attention to the high standards that Rangers are expected to perform to and thinking in regard to the simple value of a highly motivated force, not the realistic aspects of such a transition.

Although impractical, Ravage did say this with the best intentions (to my understanding). Just seems like we're coming off a bit forceful. If I'm out of line with saying this, let me know.


----------



## pardus (Jul 1, 2014)

Red Exclusive said:


> Seems like this thread has gotten a bit hot... Clearly, Ravage could have thought out his response a bit better. But regardless, he meant that Rangers are elite and, with said logic, assumed big army would implement strategies to transition into a force that operates like the 75th. He was paying attention to the high standards that Rangers are expected to perform to and thinking in regard to the simple value of a highly motivated force, not the realistic aspects of such a transition.
> 
> Although impractical, Ravage did say this with the best intentions (to my understanding). Just seems like we're coming off a bit forceful. If I'm out of line with saying this, let me know.



Seems like you need to Read More and Post Less, but thank you for telling us that "*we're* coming off a bit forceful", we sincerely appreciate your input that comes from your wisdom after how many years in the Military exactly?


----------



## AWP (Jul 1, 2014)

Red Exclusive said:


> Just seems like we're coming off a bit forceful. If I'm out of line with saying this, let me know.


 
I think your SA (situational awareness) could use some work. You just tried to correct a Special Forces soldier (and Staff member), a Ranger, an exceptionally experienced support guy, and yet another Staff member in an argument where you have zero experience?


----------



## Red Exclusive (Jul 1, 2014)

Sorry to everyone involved, and those who aren't as well. That was my mistake on reading what was going on. Genuinely, thank you all for the corrective criticism. I'm trying to get a feel for the place here and learn what is and is not deemed appropriate, so your explanations do help. I'm a little embarrassed at coming across so arrogant, but at least this may serve the purpose of what not to do for new users.


----------



## AWP (Jul 2, 2014)

@Ravage  I find it curious that several called you out for your comment and your rebuttal was specifically to me via PM.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 2, 2014)

Red Exclusive said:


> Sorry to everyone involved, and those who aren't as well. That was my mistake on reading what was going on. Genuinely, thank you all for the corrective criticism. I'm trying to get a feel for the place here and learn what is and is not deemed appropriate, so your explanations do help. I'm a little embarrassed at coming across so arrogant, but at least this may serve the purpose of what not to do for new users.



Next time have you SA radar up and stay in your lane.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 2, 2014)

Ravage said:


> One would think the Big Army would be more better of, if they look-up all the good things that go on  in the 75th Regiment.



Two different animals with very different missions. Conventional forces or "big Army" is the hammer for taking on large size enemy forces, and we are the best at it. We unfortunately get used for COIN, CT, AT (or full spectrum ops) and historically most large conventional forces are not good at it... We are obviously not as good at it as we are in maneuver warfare or large scale conventional warfare.

That said there are several conventional units that maintain high level standards for light infantry direct action raids. Not on the same level as Rangers, normally due to funding, training, experience and the occasional retard. But all the same, some of the best in light infantry operations.

Bottom line, you cannot not produce division level Ranger capability, if you could we would have done it years ago. There is a reason why Rangers are selected, specially trained, and designated as a special operation force.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 2, 2014)

@JAB that was a very cogent response.  Unfortunately, it won't make it through the fanboy filter to be absorbed by the intended recipient.


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2014)

JAB said:


> Two different animals with very different missions. Conventional forces or "big Army" is the hammer for taking on large size enemy forces, and we are the best at it. We unfortunately get used for COIN, CT, AT (or full spectrum ops) and historically most large conventional forces are not good at it... We are obviously not as good at it as we are in maneuver warfare or large scale conventional warfare.
> 
> That said there are several conventional units that maintain high level standards for light infantry direct action raids. Not on the same level as Rangers, normally due to funding, training, experience and the occasional retard. But all the same, some of the best in light infantry operations.
> 
> *Bottom line, you cannot not produce division level Ranger capability,* if you could we would have done it years ago. There is a reason why Rangers are selected, specially trained, and designated as a special operation force.



Ah, not quite true. Look at what was achieved during WWII.


----------



## AWP (Jul 2, 2014)

pardus said:


> Ah, not quite true. Look at what was achieved during WWII.


 
The BN's weren't organized along a Division's lines plus they had more men in uniform then. The 1st SSF was a brigade-sized element of approximately 1,800 men. An average US WWII infantry division was around 15,000 soldiers, with some going as high as 20k.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 2, 2014)

And look at the Army size they drew from to find enough men capable of being qualified to function in the Ranger Battalions then.

7,994,750 Soldiers, in 1944.

You can't mass produce special operations units of any sort, period. There are not enough people that would volunteer for the additionally hazardous duty, and among them there are not enough that would pass the selection processes. Period.

For comparison, there's about a half million troops in the army give or take right now.


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> The BN's weren't organized along a Division's lines plus they had more men in uniform then. The 1st SSF was a brigade-sized element of approximately 1,800 men. An average US WWII infantry division was around 15,000 soldiers, with some going as high as 20k.



The Brits had 2 Airborne divisions, formed from the Commandos (Not to mention the 5 American Airborne divisions), who were the foundation of the Rangers. I don't see any difference between the WWII Rangers and Paras/Commandos.

Now that said. I acknowledge that it is exponentially more difficult to man and train a force the size of a division. But it has been done.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 2, 2014)

Well can you find 20k soldiers to train and fight like ranger regiment? Maybe, reality would be lower standards and acceptance of people who almost make the cut. Comparison of the cammandos/paras of WW2 to current SOF/ Rangers is apples to oranges. The capabilities are night and day. 


As a CF soldier I can say honestly say that there is no way you can group that many, that willing to cross those bridges into one cohesive unit. I'm not sure there is an officer that could lead "effectively" such a unit ( in this army).

Either way, 75th has a hard enough time staffing their MTO/E that I really doubt you could ever get 20k at the same capability.


My $.02


----------



## pardus (Jul 2, 2014)

JAB said:


> Well can you find 20k soldiers to train and fight like Ranger regiment? Maybe, reality would be lower standards and acceptance of people who almost make the cut. *Comparison of the cammandos/paras of WW2 to current SOF/ Rangers is apples to oranges. The capabilities are night and day*.
> 
> 
> As a CF soldier I can say honestly say that there is no way you can group that many, that willing to cross those bridges into one cohesive unit. I'm not sure there is an officer that could lead "effectively" such a unit ( in this army).
> ...



No, they are not. If you think Bruneval, Pointe du Hoc, Lofotens Islands, St Nazaire ops were less than what the modern Rangers can do, then I postulate the exact opposite!


----------



## Red Exclusive (Jul 3, 2014)

JAB said:


> Well can you find 20k soldiers to train and fight like Ranger regiment? Maybe, reality would be lower standards and acceptance of people who almost make the cut. Comparison of the cammandos/paras of WW2 to current SOF/ Rangers is apples to oranges. The capabilities are night and day.



I do agree with you about the difficulty in growing a SOF to that size.  But capability changes are mostly dependent upon technological advances, I would think. With better equipment, you can theoretically do more and different things. The intended mission is generally the same, however. 

Winston Churchill himself wrote that he wanted "at least twenty thousand Storm Troops or ‘Leopards’ drawn from existing units, ready to spring at the throat of any small landings or descents". 

Minus the number of 20K we were discussing as well, that sounds a lot like modern Rangers to me.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 3, 2014)

Red Exclusive said:


> I do agree with you about the difficulty in growing a SOF to that size.  But capability changes are mostly dependent upon technological advances, I would think. With better equipment, you can theoretically do more and different things. The intended mission is generally the same, however.
> 
> Winston Churchill himself wrote that he wanted "at least twenty thousand Storm Troops or ‘Leopards’ drawn from existing units, ready to spring at the throat of any small landings or descents".
> 
> Minus the number of 20K we were discussing as well, that sounds a lot like modern Rangers to me.



@Red Exclusive I used to be just like you, I was an 18y/o, 18X, who thought I knew stuff about things, so I am going to give some advice that you should heed. Shut the fuck up. Read everything here, then you can slowly start posting. Listening to an 18 year old with no experience talking about capabilities, and equipment makes me want to throw up. This website has a lot of people who KNOW things through experience, we really don't give a shit what a fresh out of high school child has to say, about almost anything. 

Join the mentor forum, ask questions if you have researched and cannot find the answers yourself, but otherwise tone down the amount you post.


----------



## Red Exclusive (Jul 3, 2014)

"Read More, Post Less". Understood, now applying it. Apologies to everyone, once again. I meant to provide an opinion, but you are right. I think I'm getting too jumpy and into this when I'm really just over my head in shit where I have no place. So I am backing off now, thank you. Except for questions, this should be my last post for a while. 

To TLDR20, Ranger Psych, and Lancero: Thank you all for your answers to my original question. They helped me tremendously!


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 3, 2014)

JAB said:


> Well can you find 20k soldiers to train and fight like Ranger regiment? Maybe, reality would be lower standards and acceptance of people who almost make the cut. Comparison of the cammandos/paras of WW2 to current SOF/ Rangers is apples to oranges. The capabilities are night and day.
> 
> 
> As a CF soldier I can say honestly say that there is no way you can group that many, that willing to cross those bridges into one cohesive unit. I'm not sure there is an officer that could lead "effectively" such a unit ( in this army).
> ...


Same capability? probably not, but similar or capable of  supporting yes.

Think of all the Bullshit details Conventional Units do, compared to the 75th.

Look at the number of rounds fired per Ranger vs the number of rounds fired per Soldier.
The ability to shit can someone and send them to "Legland" is a strong motivator. Airborne units used to have that capability, Hang Korea or the 3rd ID over someone's head and see if they improve.
More Rangetime, more Combined Arms time and fewer post details can bring a units capability up significantly.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 3, 2014)

pardus said:


> No, they are not. If you think Bruneval, Pointe du Hoc, Lofotens Islands, St Nazaire ops were less than what the modern Rangers can do, then I postulate the exact opposite!



Do you really believe that? Tactics, technology and the sciences of warfare have changed a bit over the last 70 years. Small things like being able to see and shoot at night, infil/exfil capabilities/platforms, or things like air to ground support, CAS,  fucking helicopters, etc, etc.

Todays Rangers are faster, deadlier and a lot more surgical. I'm not taking anything away from the veterans of the past, Rangers or paratroopers. But shit has changed, warfare has changed, and capabilities have changed.


----------



## pardus (Jul 4, 2014)

JAB said:


> Do you really believe that? Tactics, technology and the sciences of warfare have changed a bit over the last 70 years. Small things like being able to see and shoot at night, infil/exfil capabilities/platforms, or things like air to ground support, CAS,  fucking helicopters, etc, etc.
> 
> Todays Rangers are faster, deadlier and a lot more surgical. I'm not taking anything away from the veterans of the past, Rangers or paratroopers. But shit has changed, warfare has changed, and capabilities have changed.



No, I say you are wrong in your assessment.  Have a look at the training and capabilities of those guys back then, they did the same job without the fancy gear. Air to ground, CAS etc... have been around for the last 100 years.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 4, 2014)

Surgical? 6th Bn.


----------



## AWP (Jul 4, 2014)

JAB said:


> Do you really believe that? Tactics, technology and the sciences of warfare have changed a bit over the last 70 years. Small things like being able to see and shoot at night, infil/exfil capabilities/platforms, or things like air to ground support, CAS,  fucking helicopters, etc, etc.
> 
> Todays Rangers are faster, deadlier and a lot more surgical. I'm not taking anything away from the veterans of the past, Rangers or paratroopers. But shit has changed, warfare has changed, and capabilities have changed.


 
You just unwittingly helped make his case. One way to argue the point is to compare those units against others at that time (the same one would do to the modern 75th). They were cutting edge back then, had a selection process  (some formal, some was not) which resulted in guys being  returned to their unit, distinctive uniforms and/ or insignia, "exotic weapons", and some of the missions were quite similar.

When you view those units against the time and their contemporaries, pardus has a good point.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 11, 2014)

Red Exclusive said:


> Seems like this thread has gotten a bit hot... Clearly, Ravage could have thought out his response a bit better. But regardless, he meant that Rangers are elite and, with said logic, assumed big army would implement strategies to transition into a force that operates like the 75th. He was paying attention to the high standards that Rangers are expected to perform to and thinking in regard to the simple value of a highly motivated force, not the realistic aspects of such a transition.
> 
> Although impractical, Ravage did say this with the best intentions (to my understanding). Just seems like we're coming off a bit forceful. If I'm out of line with saying this, let me know.




dude.... this ain't Dorsai, never will be, can be or have the motivation to be Dorsai.  We're lucky the low standards in Big Green don't DQ more people than they do at the moment.

If you don't get my reference, do an internet search for the word Dorsai...  then read the books.


I'm guessing you are matriculating at TCC or UTA ...  I'm hoping against hope you're not going to go to TCU or Texas Teachers.


----------



## Red Exclusive (Jul 11, 2014)

Yes, I'll be at UTA in the fall. I am explicitly against going to TCU.


----------



## Lone Wolf 101 (Aug 26, 2015)

Sorry to bring back a year old thread, but I'm just enlisting soon and couldn't get an option 40. Are there still chances of getting into RASP in AIT, OSUT or even airborne as of 2015?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 27, 2015)

It's not something I would rely on, personally. I would honestly pressure your recruiter and be willing to wait to get one if necessary rather than having it be a very variable maybe.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 27, 2015)

Lone Wolf 101 said:


> Sorry to bring back a year old thread, but I'm just enlisting soon and couldn't get an option 40. Are there still chances of getting into RASP in AIT, OSUT or even airborne as of 2015?


A good number of guys picked contracts up at OSUT/AIT. Get a 270+ on your 3-5th APFT and you should at least get a chance to talk with the LNO for RASP.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2015)

Short of someone in the 75th's recruiting process coming along, that's about as current as you can get.


----------



## Lone Wolf 101 (Aug 27, 2015)

Thank you for the replys. Unfortunately I cannot produce certain documents for my recruiter. Some of my siblings were born abroad but they do have their naturalization certificates except one. The recruiter said that he needs copies of all of them so I helped my one sibling into trying to get another copy but USCIS says their backlogged from Oct. 2014. So therefore I cannot pass the security clearance.  I have a huge dilemma here and not sure what to do. I'm 28, should I wait a few more months to get out in my contract or take the chance? I will do a self administered PT test soon.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 27, 2015)

If you don't unfuck that clearance stuff now, while you are there and can press the issue? Your family will more or less blow the stuff off since it bears no effect upon their lives, and IF you have the opportunity in Airborne.... you'll be unable to go because you don't have the requisite clearance requirement.

Fix it now, or forever leggity leg...


----------



## Lone Wolf 101 (Aug 27, 2015)

Ranger Psych,
I was looking for an answer for more than two years and I'm sure you answered it. I had concerns that even if I enlisted with an option 4 (airborne) I would still not get into RASP because of the security clearance issue. You are correct about my family, who honestly don't give a damn about what I'm trying to do, or at least helping me press the issue.  And I don't want to be in a leg unit. I've always wanted to be a Ranger, after hearing about Operation Anaconda and Mogadishu. For now I'll wait. It'll be many months probably but I think there's too much to risk.  Again I appreciate everyone's replies and hopefully someone with similar issues can learn from this post.


----------



## Brill (Aug 27, 2015)

When did foreign family members preclude a SECRET clearance?


----------



## CDG (Aug 27, 2015)

lindy said:


> When did foreign family members preclude a SECRET clearance?



Part of the process is proving immediate family members are US citizens.  I've always had to submit my dad's naturalization certificate for my clearance.


----------



## Lone Wolf 101 (Aug 27, 2015)

I'm am not sure but my family members are naturalized U.S. citizens.  I spoke with several recruiters and they all said that they have to verify that they are actual people and without a copy of their naturalization certificates, I cannot get a minimal security clearance. It's a crappy situation.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2015)

The inability to obtain a clearance will be a non-starter. Either deal with it now while you're home or enlist with whatever MOS and take your chances trying to fix the issue while on active duty. One gives you time and access to resources, the other? Not so much.


----------



## Lone Wolf 101 (Aug 27, 2015)

Makes sense. Thanks Freefalling.


----------

