New pipeline for TACP

[Johca]

I still haven't met a single PJ with a good answer for that, or for the "physiological output" argument.

That's because all the PJs and Flight Surgeons and other that established the functional and physiological fitness standards retired made their final jump before you were old enough to enlist. The following document traces the functional and physiological concerns from WWII to present.

The operational heritage of the Pararescue Indoctrination Course with focus on shifts in student attrition, approaches to fitness training, and student demographics

 

[Johca]

The WWII Special Operations unit and forces Heraldry on specialtactics.com may be of interest as it is mostly WWII video documentaries found on Youtube. The film footage from WWII is much more interesting than reading about what led to the origins and development of current special force and special operations capabilities. Certainly more interesting than reading lots of boring info.

 

[amlove21]

That's because all the PJs and Flight Surgeons and other that established the functional and physiological fitness standards retired made their final jump before you were old enough to enlist. The following document traces the functional and physiological concerns from WWII to present.

The operational heritage of the Pararescue Indoctrination Course with focus on shifts in student attrition, approaches to fitness training, and student demographics

This gives me pause.

We apparently don't care enough about our career field to update our standards post 1998?

Our career field is 100% different now. Constant combat across what, 5 AOR's and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??

 

[Johca]

...and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??

Yep, you nailed it. However, the PJ PAST standards for entry classification puposes did become a bit more robust than the CCT PAST in 2014.

However Public Law 103-160, Section 543 (1993) requiring all performance standards must be gender neutral combined with the repeal of the combat exclusion policy included stipulation all changes in performance standards must be submitted to the US Congress for approval makes it significantly difficult to make performance standards more robust in difficulty than they currently are.

SEC. 543. GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

• 
  (a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT- In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense--

• 
  (1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards or evaluation on the basis of gender;

• 
  (2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and

• 
  (3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.

• 
  (b) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO USE OF SPECIFIC PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS- (1) For any military occupational specialty for which the Secretary of Defense determines that specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, the Secretary shall prescribe specific physical requirements for members in that specialty and shall ensure (in the case of an occupational specialty that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces) that those requirements are applied on a gender-neutral basis.

• 
  (2) Whenever the Secretary establishes or revises a physical requirement for an occupational specialty, a member serving in that occupational specialty when the new requirement becomes effective, who is otherwise considered to be a satisfactory performer, shall be provided a reasonable period, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to meet the standard established by the new requirement. During that period, the new physical requirement may not be used to disqualify the member from continued service in that specialty.

• 
  (c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CHANGES- Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes to implement changes to the occupational standards for a military occupational field that are expected to result in an increase, or in a decrease, of at least 10 percent in the number of female members of the Armed Forces who enter, or are assigned to, that occupational field, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report providing notice of the change and the justification and rationale for the change. Such changes may then be implemented only after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such report is submitted.

 

[0699]

This gives me pause.

We apparently don't care enough about our career field to update our standards post 1998?

Our career field is 100% different now. Constant combat across what, 5 AOR's and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??

I think this is more common than just your career field. Everyone wants to be high-speed, but few want to do the paperwork. Keeping documentation up to date, whether it's task/condition/standard or SOPs, seems to be a difficult task for across the board.

 

[8654Maine]

Very enlightening thread.

 

[CDG]

We are victims of the exact same thing.

"Girls? What if they need to pull me, a 215lb dude in my kit, out of fire?! THEY CANT NO GIRLS!!!"

Hate to say it- but nowhere in the entire pipeline is a buddy carry/drag of that nature any sort of graded event. Ever. Nor is it a core task. You need the PAST (3 mile run, pushups, situps, pullups, swim) every 18 months as a physical requirement to be a PJ. No buddy drag/carry/functional fitness test of any kind in there. Guys take a shit on this test, PS, for any number of reasons and still work. We do the Operator Ugly (at the Vegas unit) and hold the guys to a standard for points- but if push came to shove and I wanted to reprimand a guy for not making that standard? I have ZERO leg to stand on if he wants to IG/lawyer up.

Inevitably, what follows is, "Well, Mr. PJ, if this is SO important that you're using it to discount and entire population (women), then why haven't you taken the time to make it a core task/graded event? Maybe it isn't that important?" I still haven't met a single PJ with a good answer for that, or for the "physiological output" argument.

I think the biggest question here is a simple manning issue. If women occupy combat jobs, are we then allowed to ORDER them not to get pregnant? Because holy shit what a nightmare that conversation would be. Legally, morally, ethically- no one wants to touch it. But a female getting pregnant takes her out of the operational game for 12 months, period. That's a serious issue.

100% agree. We constantly bring up the same buddy carry/drag argument. We do it regularly at drills and FTXs, and at the Schoolhouse. Nowhere is it graded or a pass/fail event though. We are required to complete the regular USAF PT test every year, and that's it. Guys HATE that being the standard. We push all the time to at least do the TACP PAST and I've tried to get Operator Ugly implemented. As of now it's just big boy rules for staying in the right kind of shape, and not everyone does. The TACP field, I think, has the biggest issue with holding fitness standards post-pipeline. If dudes decide, "Fuck it. I got my beret and I'm set." and let themselves go, as long as they pass the USAF PT test, you can't do much.

The pregnancy issue, like you stated, is a hot potato that no one wants to touch.

"Women can and should be able to do any job."
"Ok, assuming they make it, what if they get pregnant and we lose them for a long period of time."
"That's their right as women."
"Uhhhhh.....ok, so can dudes just up and decide to take 12-18 months off?"
"You think pregnancy is taking time off?!?!?! Feminist Portlandia rage out."

I saw it in the Navy and we'll see it here. Chicks will decide they don't want to deploy, go TDY, etc. They'll get pregnant, wait until the deployment/TDY is far enough in that they won't have to join it, and they'll terminate the pregnancy. Short of being dumb enough to admit it to the wrong person, there's no way to prove it and they'll remain in service.

 

[Johca]

100% agree. We constantly bring up the same buddy carry/drag argument. We do it regularly at drills and FTXs, and at the Schoolhouse. Nowhere is it graded or a pass/fail event though. We are required to complete the regular USAF PT test every year, and that's it.

Well true for TACP, but not exactly accurate for Pararescue.

AFI 10-3502v2 Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer & Evaluation Program complements and implements operational capability put forth in the AFECD and AFOCD specialty description and the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP). The mission evaluation policies (chapter 3) and Task Evaluation Requirements (chapter 4) should if not will require certain tactical profiles (TACP calls them evaluated Field Training Exercises and PJs used to call it evaluated Combat Rescue Training Exercises) to be periodical accomplished and core task evaluations to be periodically accomplished to a pass-fail standard.

AFI 10-3502V1 Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training also complements and supports the AFECD and AFOCD specialty description by putting forth proficiency training requirements to sustain mission ready qualifications and certification in addition to providing specific training requirements for initial qualification training, mission qualification training, upgrade training, continuation training, specialized training (jumpmaster, Dive Supervisor, Team Leader, etc) and physical fitness certification grading criteria and scoring.

The presumption is NCO and CRO leadership in the units are leading by example and are also evaluating human performance to safely, effectively, and efficiently do tasks with adequate or sufficient physical fitness.

This evaluation methodology was adopted by CCT ca 1982 initially at the first original STS and then for the career field ca. 1988. The CCT officer who had STS concept of and stood up STS wrote a book disclosing this. The previously linked to Indoc development history provides a little bit more of the timeline specifics as it directly connects to the joint or combined PJ-CCT Indoc course existing from September 1987 to 2008. It also directly connects to PAST being known as the PJ and CCT PAST from September 1987 to ca. 2014. Each AFSC now has AFSC specific PAST requirements for GTEP enlistment contract and as prerequisite for course of initial entry.

 

[Johca]

I think this is more common than just your career field. Everyone wants to be high-speed, but few want to do the paperwork.

Unless it is to justify authorization and approval of a beret, and in a few instances the actual justification and approval documents are some what lacking in substance.

Attached is copy of the official USAF EOD proposal for a EOD beret submitted into official channels back during 2011.

ROFL still on the justifying reason put out by the EOD career field manager (a CMSGT) to EOD career field included:

"I was given this example by an EOD Airman who favors the beret. He explained to me that when we go to events on base or to special classes like PME everyone looks around at the Airmen as they walk in, mingle about or stand in formation. Everybody who walks in is an Airman. When an Airman walks in wearing a maroon beret everyone recognizes that a PJ walked in. The same goes for a red beret, everyone knows that a combat controller just walked in. They are looked at differently, looked at as being warriors. He mentioned that no one in the AF is doing what we do in this war and EOD should be recognized as being a unique warrior Airman. We aren't just part of the group; we are elite and should be recognized for it. I happen to agree with this TSgt."

BTW, The Distinctive Beret Uniform History of US Armed Forces may provide some reading of interest. Lots of units locally authorized officially and unofficially wear of berets, this history focuses on military department approval of beret wear with the Service uniform both on and off duty. The military department approval of wear with service uniform both on and off duty is what distinguished beret being an element of a distinctive service uniform.

 

[0699]

Unless it is to justify authorization and approval of a beret, and in a few instances the actual justification and approval documents are some what lacking in substance.

Or a patch, or specialty pay, etc. But work hard to improve things just because it needs to be done? Fucking crickets from 95%...

It reads like it was written by an 8th grader, not an E-9. I do love the use of Wikipedia as a source.

 

[AWP]

I lost a few brain cells reading the EOD beret proposal. The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork. I think the world of EOD techs as a whole, but that doc is insulting.

 

[Johca]

...
It reads like it was written by an 8th grader, not an E-9. I do love the use of Wikipedia as a source.

Yep, but I figured there wasn't a need to identify specific service members. It was the AF EOD community that put it up on Wikipedia. Go to HQ AMC EOD and scroll back to July 20, 2011.

The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork.

It was by the Air Force Uniform Board.

 

[CDG]

I lost a few brain cells reading the EOD beret proposal. The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork. I think the world of EOD techs as a whole, but that doc is insulting.

I think the continuing addition of people authorized to wear berets is ridiculous. Somehow SERE managed to get a beret and a sweet shoulder scroll. I guess they're double elite. The way the USAF is going, we'll run out of colors as all the units justify their eliteness and beret deservedness. Security Forces continues to be the most ridiculous of all the authorizations, IMO. From the link Johca posted:

In 1976 Navy Blue beret was adopted as a duty uniform regardless of unit security/law enforcement members were assigned, justification reasoning being beret gives others means of readily identifying Security Forces members in a crisis situation, unique appearance has effect of providing deterrence to those who may seek to violate the law, damage and steal property, or harm others...........had the purpose of identifying members of Security Forces careerfield of being an elite group of Air Force personnel charged with primary purpose of protecting the Air Force on the ground.

Bolded emphasis is mine. Total fucking clownshoes. The SecFo beret is a crime deterrent? That was the justification? AND IT WORKED???

 

[Johca]

s

The SecFo beret is a crime deterrent? That was the justification? AND IT WORKED???

The Security Forces Beret actually has justification source documents to be found and scrutinized, however, beret wear within the Air Force while proliferating in SEA in the late 1960s does go back to the 1950s. The difficulty is the berets were worn as a duty uniform typically approved by the local unit or local base commander, if approved at all, and there is few, if any, source documentation to find.

The problem is several Air Force Specialties have back or dark blue beret duty uniforms during the 1960s.

During the 1950s the Air Force had law enforcement military police and air base defense infantry. The two AFSCs merged into Security Police in 1956 as result of Air Force saying there was no threat need for local Air Base Defense. However the Air Base Defense Squadrons (mostly at SAC locations in CONUS and overseas) and the HQ SAC Elite Guard (mostly a ceremonial honor guard) had MAJCOM (SAC) approval and authorization to wear the dark blue or black beret. When TAC decided to resurrect Air Base Defense (SAFESIDE) it basically recreated two squadrons of Air Base Defense Infantry and resurrected the beret wear for the security police folks assigned to the safeside squadrons. Regardless the Security Forces justification for the beret source documents are available for scrutiny.

The other groups during the SEA conflict that began wearing Dark Blue or Black berets were: (1) the ALOs (not limited to Tactical Air Control Party designated ALOs), (2) enlisted and officers assigned to Combat Control Teams, and officers, and (3) enlisted parachutists assigned to combat weather teams (supporting both conventional and Special Forces Army).

Both TACP and CCT had ROMADS integrated into the teams, so TACP gets the beret linage from both CCT and TACP.

The Weather beret linage is a bit more complicated as there was about a half dozen Hurlburt Field weather folks connected to ops in Laos (1964-1973) that wore the grey beret, however, the Black Beret was worn by the Air Weather Service Combat Weather Team members in SEA assigned to 30th WS and 5th WS. In 1970 the Blue Beret was authorized as a duty uniform for all Air Weather Service Parachutists. The weather parachutist beret becoming Gray in 1986 when it was approved and authorized as a Distinctive Uniform (worn with Service Uniform both on and off duty).

BTW it was CCT, Combat (Special Operations) Weather, and PJs doing CAS aircraft control in Laos. The USAF Pararescue’s Team Player History of Role and Mission Crossover Utilization documents CCT, SOW, and PJs doing FAC and CAS controlling on pages 19 through 32.

 

[Wild Bill]

Everything about it is wrong. What about capture? You shitting me. She would be used against all the other guys like in SERE. Rape her in front of you. Guy could kill himself trying to save her or give up info. Just too many issues. No way she could lift dead weight of even 150lbs let alone more. They can approve it, question is what woman would want to do it then actually graduate. Not gonna happen.

 

[CDG]

Everything about it is wrong. What about capture? You shitting me. She would be used against all the other guys like in SERE. Rape her in front of you. Guy could kill himself trying to save her or give up info. Just too many issues. No way she could lift dead weight of even 150lbs let alone more. They can approve it, question is what woman would want to do it then actually graduate. Not gonna happen.

I think there are women who could lift the 150#. Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up. However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare. I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female. Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all. There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job. I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step. Unsat.

I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it. Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X. I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc. Look at me."? This is why standards HAVE to stay the same. It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.

 

[Wild Bill]

I think there are women who could lift the 150#. Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up. However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare. I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female. Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all. There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job. I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step. Unsat.

I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it. Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X. I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc. Look at me."? This is why standards HAVE to stay the same. It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.

Totally agree. I've met a few guys that made me wonder WTF were the instructors thinking.

 

[Wild Bill]

I think there are women who could lift the 150#. Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up. However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare. I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female. Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all. There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job. I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step. Unsat.

I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it. Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X. I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc. Look at me."? This is why standards HAVE to stay the same. It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.

Totally agree. I've met a few guys that made me wonder WTF were the instructors thinking.

 

[Johca]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...gration-assessment-female-operators/23243457/

...Little so far has been revealed about how the various forces within Special Operations Command are planning in light of the upcoming integration deadline. ...

The Navy has announced plans to open up its SEAL track to female sailors as soon as this fall if the Department of Defense ordered the service to integrate. Officials said they don't plan to conduct any test classes ahead of the integration order, however.

In the Air Force, Secretary Deborah Lee James said last fall she plans to open the service's seven male-only jobs -- including special tactics officer and pararescue -- to female airmen by next spring.

Osterman's comments provide the first look at what MARSOC is doing ahead of a possible integration order. The command has a grueling and lengthy training pipeline for its critical skills operators: after an assessment and selection process, Marines undergo the nine-month Individual Training Course. The four phases of ITC cover everything from Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) to irregular warfare and urban combat.
...

 

[Ooh-Rah]

From the article that @Johca posted:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...gration-assessment-female-operators/23243457/

I intend no sarcasm or snarkyness about the whole women in combat debate, I just want to better understand the article as written:


"We're bringing in folks to conduct a review of our standards within MARSOC and our training pipeline," Osterman said in an interview. "Just to make sure that we've got a good objective set of gender-neutral standards that are there."
Q - In regards to the 'gender-neutral standards'...does/could this mean that exercises such as pull ups, push ups (at least quantity) and long rucking (in regards to weight, distance and time) would be adjusted to ensure that female candidates have an equal shot of reaching the updated standard?

Female soldiers will soon undergo a one-time assessment at the Army Ranger School, set to start in April with about 60 female volunteers on board. Those who graduate the course will receive a Ranger tab, officials have said.
Q - Is this the same Ranger course that the men attend?
Q - I wonder if there is a requirement, (official or unofficial) that a certain % pass?
Q - With the Ranger tab, would they then be considered SOF?