SAS eases entry tests for women
 

Times reports today that the SAS are planning to ease the entry tests for women - less weight and more time allowed for the speed marches. It didn't take long did it?

The headline is misleading, the article says they are considering doing so.

To quote the article for those who don’t buy The Times, and because it is behind a firewall, I enclose the text of the article below.

SAS to ease entry test to woo women

...”Britain’s special forces are considering modifying their notoriously tough selection tests to ensure women have a “fair” chance of joining the elite units.

It is understood the possible changes will be made to the initial phase of the SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service) selection, which is when recruits are expected to march over hilly terrain carrying increasingly heavy loads. On some of the longer marches, The Sunday Times has learnt, female soldiers may be allowed to carry less weight and will be given extra time to complete the tests. The changes are being considered because the first female soldiers could apply for special forces selection in just over a year, defence sources say. Soldiers from any unit in the armed forces can apply to join the special forces, although they traditionally recruit heavily from the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines.

Members of the SAS have been told that the selection standards for the regiment, which prides itself on running one of the most demanding military recruitment courses in the world, will not be lowered. But the proposal is believed to have caused dismay among some of the warrant officers and sergeants, who see themselves as the custodians of the regiment’s reputation for excellence. While the modifications to special forces selection are still only being considered, the mere discussion of the subject has led to heated debate among officers and warrant officers, it is claimed.

The move follows an announcement in July 2016 by David Cameron, then the prime minister, that women would be allowed to serve in close combat units. By the end of next year, all armed forces roles will be open to women. Research conducted by the Ministry of Defence before the decision found that women were twice as likely to suffer musculoskeletal injuries during initial military training. An analysis of recent army recruits found only 4.5% of women would meet the physical standards required for joining the infantry or Royal Armoured Corps, which have lower physical standards than the special forces.

Sources say special forces commanders are considering changing only the first of several phases of selection, which involves marches in the Brecon Beacons in south Wales over a four-week period. “There is a determination to get women into the special forces,” the source said. “There will be changes to the selection of women but it is not about lowering standards — it’s about levelling the playing field. For a woman to pass special forces selection, she will have to be very focused and very fit — exactly the same as her male colleagues.”

Few countries have female soldiers in their elite special forces. The first woman to enlist to become a US Navy Seal dropped out of training earlier this year. In 2014, however, Norway formed the world’s first all-female special forces unit. The Jegertroppen — or “Hunter Troops” — are trained to parachute from military aircraft and ski in the Arctic.

The MoD said it did not comment on the special forces.”..........

Perhaps they need a sliding scale of fitness requirements, based on body mass. That way they can give allowances for flimsy wee guys, as well as wee girls, but make the strapping big lasses do the same as the big guys.

Would that not be fair?

Cue the misogynists...

At the end of the day the weapon, radio, body armour, food, water, webbing, pack etc that they will carry will all weigh the same, or near enough, as the blokes.

The reality is that most girls are going to be incapable of carrying the same load as far and as fast as the blokes. I’m happy to leave it up to the SAS to decide if they think it’s appropriate though!!!

You can bet your bottom dollar the MOD will be only be too happy to comment on special forces when the first woman does get in. You won't be able to shut them up from commenting.

This was a tactic of the left during the Obama administration to shut down conversation. Scream racism and scare those who dare bring up legitimate policy concerns.

I was never in the military, but as someone who has had some dealings with the SAS and who wishes to be protected by them, I say, do not dilute the standards, let the best person (man or woman) win.

Exactly. Last time I picked a weapon and 120+ rounds up it was a standard weight. To be meaningful equality must mean equality in all senses. Whatever the role or walk of life, when you make adjustments ‘to take into account’ then you don’t have equality. Nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny. Open the role to all who wish to try, set a consistent standard reflecting the role and see who passes.

Since when is combat fair? Do we have to ensure that we field the right level of soldier for the expected enemy response?

War is not an equal opportunities employer...

I believe the point being made here is that the donkey factor - picking those that can carry the most the farthest - has never been the purpose of the first phase of training. Rather it was to stretch those participating to the very limit physically and mentally and see who cracked and who didn’t. In other words it is more a test of character and temperament than endurance.

Yes, it sets limits on weight and distance, but based on the median for male soldiers in order to eliminate the 90%,the same way ejector seats were designed to accommodate the median male 90%. Which proved inadequate when female pilots came along - which didn’t prove a failure of the females involved, rather than a failure in the design.

It may be that the phase 1 test was designed based on a rigorous scientific investigation of the task requirements of the SF in combat, but I doubt it.

If, and I say, if, the initial phase 1 weeding out process can be adjusted so that females who are also of the desired small percentile pass selection; and that the subsequent training and selection process identifies those who have the right qualities, the end result may be a plus.

Not every quality sought in the SF depend on the size of the muscles, much on intelligence, perseverance, ingenuity and courage.

Bottom line ORAC, you’re in favor of dropping of dropping the existing standards.

No. The standard is set by those eventually qualify, not those who are allowed to join the class.

When they changed the entry sex, weight and height standards for pilot did they drop or merely change them?

Adjusted being the operative word. I’m reasonably sure by adjusted, you don’t mean increasing the task and standards.

Political correctness experiment with no gain to those on the pointy end.

Recall the wise words from earlier in the thread about war not being an equal opportunity employer. You want to stack the deck in your favor, not dumb down the advantage that high standards brings. There are jobs in the military where woman excel, likely exceeding their male counterparts performance at. A job that emphasizes physical endurance and core strength doesn’t play to a woman’s size.

If and only if a woman can pass the same test that a man can (not a gender considerate dumbed down one) should they be allowed in the SAS.

While the article is probably correct saying British SF are considering . . . it then goes on to say 'understood SAS and SBS . . . '

Is that true or an assumption by the journos? SF is not only SAS/SBS.

Did they change the piloting ability standards? That's what's relevant for aircrew.

Not all jobs need a hammer, some need a knife. Not all tasks need muscle, some need endurance and other qualities. If you only have hammers in your tool box, the solution to every problem is a nail.

Which is the point I was making. Are the present parameters for phase 1 merely the same as the old aircrew entry standards that females could not pass. What are the SF “abilities” that are required at the end of the course - not the weeding out criteria at the start.

I am reminded of the fact that in NI during “The Troubles” the security and SF required many females to “blend in” and provide intelligence and support and many girls were recruited from all three services and served on many operations where beefy military men would have been flushed out and killed in short notice. I doubt many would have passed phase 1.

The point ORAC is, I believe making is (and I'm inclined to agree)...

Are the 'phase 1 criteria' for tabbing around Brecon job-spec criteria for physical fitness, or for mental toughness. If the latter then adjust away to achieve an equivalency. I would, however, say if the former then I have to agree with the mob. However, I'd hazard a guess and say none of us are experts in the SF selection process, so how's about we let them make their own professional decisions and trust them to make the right one to enable warfighting to take place in the safest way for our own side and the most dangerous for her majesty's enemies.

And there you have it, initial selection gets rid of those not worth the effort and expenditure of the subsequent training, often as many as 90%. The subsequent training will continue to identify individuals not considered SF material and they will RTU, no mention of reducing the standard required for women. The training staff are all well experienced SF soldiers and a candidate will be judged on whether the experienced soldiers would be happy to go on an operation with them. Even failing to maintain the standard once 'badged' can be the cause of being sent back to the parent regiment or corps. I have no idea what the 'chop' rate is after selection but there is one, many are called but few are chosen.