USN Showdown between Super Hornet and F-35

[HSMPBR]

The boss’s goals (especially an O-10) often have an odd way of seeming like policy to subordinates who carry out the objectives.

0% ground mishaps is a goal. Something to work toward. Pop champagne if we ever pull it off.

Documents like this, even when they say they are “aspirational,” will lead to or become policies in and of themselves:




But anyway, back to the F-35s.

 

[FLGUY]

While that may be some people’s perception, we don’t have selection quotas (that would be against policy and the law), we have goals, which is different.

Given that this country still has some fairly wide disparities in areas like education, healthcare, earning power and upward mobility for certain key demographics, I think it’s a bit premature to declare that the playing field is completely level.

Strongly recommend the book Caste by Isabel Wilkerson. It changed my approach to leading a diverse workforce.

The disparity is there, and the differences that an average individual experiences based on their demographic(s) and upbringing still play a factor into their likelihood of success and trajectory in life.

The playing field is not completely level, nor will it ever be, as life will never be truly equal in any capacity. I don’t think that anybody who looks objectively at that situation in this country would say that the playing field is level enough, but the way in which we attack that problem is the key issue here imo.

Something akin to “How can we maximize the principle of meritocracy in our selections while ensuring that individuals have all had the same equality of opportunity” would be my best idea of a solution.

 

[Hotdogs]

Prove me, and the DoD policy, wrong.

You're not, and nor is DoD policy. Happy?

Blind indifference to the delta between policy and “goals” is naive. Diversity will ensure less qualified people will assume positions and ranks ahead of others. I’d think people prefer that we’d just call it like everyone sees it and let the elected officials (and by extension, our constituents) debate whether it’s appropriate, and if so, to what extent.

 

[Brett327]

The boss’s goals (especially an O-10) often have an odd way of seeming like policy to subordinates who carry out the objectives.

I’m not sure I agree with that. First off, we shouldn’t view this as “The Boss’s” goals. These should be our goals. We’re pretty careful about introducing undue influence and bias into our selection board process, and fact that we’re not meeting our goals is a good indication that voting members aren’t feeling pressure to do so.

For those of you that think increasing our diversity numbers means that we’re picking less qualified people… that mindset, and what it implies about how you view minorities and women, should give all of us pause.

 

[FLGUY]

For those of you that think increasing our diversity numbers means that we’re picking less qualified people… that mindset, and what it implies about how you view minorities and women, should give all of us pause.

No, those of us that critique diversity “goals” aren’t assuming that minorities -are- being selected based on their demographics, we are -hoping- that are being selected based solely on merit.

The idea that higher-ups in the military could succumb to indirect or direct pressure from politicians or politics to some degree, instead of focusing on making the most effective military possible with regards to these “goals” is not a far fetched one, it isn’t conspiratorial, nor does it imply any sort of prejudice.

A naturally diverse, cohesive, and well-integrated fighting force is something that we all want, because it would come downstream from a healthy, cohesive society.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The boss’s goals (especially an O-10) often have an odd way of seeming like policy to subordinates who carry out the objectives.

0% ground mishaps is a goal. Something to work toward. Pop champagne if we ever pull it off.

Documents like this, even when they say they are “aspirational,” will lead to or become policies in and of themselves:


View attachment 39036

But anyway, back to the F-35s.

Sounds like the ongoing troubles with the RAF’s recruitment issues that have been in the news. The Group Captain in charge of recruiting was so disturbed by what was happening that she resigned. There have been a number of articles from the BBC, The Guardian, etc as well as a lawsuit with the Air Chief Marshall issuing a formal apology.

 

[Brett327]

No, those of us that critique diversity “goals” aren’t assuming that minorities -are- being selected based on their demographics, we are -hoping- that are being selected based solely on merit.

The idea that higher-ups in the military could succumb to indirect or direct pressure from politicians or politics to some degree, instead of focusing on making the most effective military possible with regards to these “goals” is not a far fetched one, it isn’t conspiratorial, nor does it imply any sort of prejudice.

A naturally diverse, cohesive, and well-integrated fighting force is something that we all want, because it would come downstream from a healthy, cohesive society.

People can fetishize this artificial construct of “most qualified.” It doesn’t really exist. We’re all flawed in manifold ways, and someone managed to pick us to do the jobs we do. It’s all subjective, even though our boards try very hard to make it less so. “Most qualified” is a diffuse range of people, not a specific datum anyone can point to.

 

[FLGUY]

People can fetishize this artificial construct of “most qualified.” It doesn’t really exist. We’re all flawed in manifold ways, and someone managed to pick us to do the jobs we do. It’s all subjective, even though our boards try very hard to make it less so. “Most qualified” is a diffuse range of people, not a specific datum anyone can point to.

“Fetishizing” is an…..odd choice of words there. Acknowledging that humans are flawed and accepting that completely unbiased selections will never truly happen does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As long as our leaders continue to do their best to recruit what appear to be the “most qualified” individuals, in the least biased manner that they can, the military will operate in its most efficient state. If we can do so while indirectly accomplishing diversity “goals”, then that should be an indicator that our society is heading in a positive direction with regards to cohesion.

 

[sevenhelmet]

“Fetishizing” is an…..odd choice of words there. Acknowledging that humans are flawed and accepting that completely unbiased selections will never truly happen does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As long as our leaders continue to do their best to recruit what appear to be the “most qualified” individuals, in the least biased manner that they can, the military will operate in its most efficient state. If we can do so while indirectly accomplishing diversity “goals”, then that should be an indicator that our society is heading in a positive direction with regards to cohesion.

I get the distinct impression that the goal of most diversity efforts is one of optics and PR, rather than broader societal cohesion.

That's the main issue I take with diversity efforts, which often become just as "fetishized" as any other political issue du jour. It's a "tail wagging the dog" situation of forcing a numerical solution (you can argue they aren't quotas on paper, but the end result is the same) in order to match societal demographics- as if there is some unwritten rule that the military must be an exact demographic cross-section of society. Never mind that social interaction, housing, and the flow of money are typically more stratified by demographic in society than they able to be in a healthy military environment.

Having said that, I do see the upside of the military leading the way in this regard. My experience is the vast majority of troops handle things well when confronted with someone from a different demographic and/or walk of life than who they grew up around. However, in a broader sense, there are a lot of societal stresses to overcome, particularly while our media machine and political leadership is enriching themselves by squeezing lemon juice into the wounds of racial and other divisions, and then telling us we need to be more diverse.

@Brett327 , I'll add "Caste" to my reading list- it's piqued my curiosity.

 

[FLGUY]

I get the distinct impression that societal cohesion is not the goal- the goal seems to be one of optics.

That's the main issue I take with diversity efforts, which often become just as "fetishized" as any other political issue du jour. It's a "tail wagging the dog" situation of forcing a numerical solution (you can argue they aren't quotas on paper, but the end result is the same) in order to match societal demographics- as if there is some unwritten rule that the military must be an exact cross-section of society. Never mind that social interaction, housing, and the flow of money are far more separated by demographic in society than they permitted to be in military service.

Having said that, I do see the upside of the military leading the way in this regard. However, there are a lot of societal stresses to overcome, particularly while our media machine and political leadership is enriching themselves by squeezing lemon juice into racial and other divisions (and then telling us we need to be more diverse).

@Brett327 , I'll add "Caste" to my reading list- it's piqued my curiosity.

You know, I really don’t want to believe that our politicians benefit more from the strife of political and social divisiveness than they would from unity and cohesion, but at times it sure does seem like that.

 

[Brett327]

get the distinct impression that the goal of most diversity efforts is one of optics and PR, rather than broader societal cohesion.

Another angle to consider is that reaching toward those diversity goals today will increase access to those communities for recruiting purposes as the demographic in this country becomes increasingly less white.

 

[sevenhelmet]

You know, I really don’t want to believe that our politicians benefit more from the strife of political and social divisiveness than they would from unity and cohesion, but at times it sure does seem like that.

I think they do and, unfortunately, many of them on both sides of the aisle intentionally fuel those fires. Divide and conquer.

 

[FLGUY]

I think they do and, unfortunately, many of them on both sides of the aisle intentionally fuel those fires. Divide and conquer.

Definitely a bipartisan issue, a sad one at that.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Definitely a bipartisan issue, a sad one at that.

That's part of why I'd like to see political parties in general taken down a peg or two. We shouldn't have "partisan" or "bipartisan" issues in America, just issues, with solutions that we approach together as Americans. That's gotten so hard, I seriously doubt what I just said is realistic in 2023.

Although, from what I hear, there is a lot more adult behavior when media and cameras are not in the room. Which is also sad.

 

[JTS11]

That's part of why I'd like to see political parties in general taken down a peg or two...

I don't have the solution, but the opaqueness of PAC money is a real problem. So is that a lot of these House districts are so gerrymandered (both sides, but GOP edges the Dems out IMO), that the races for these seats is all about who can be the most extreme (right/left) in the primary. To the detriment of our country. There are clowns on both sides (Talib/Boebert/etc), but the House GOP is really showing their ass these last few weeks with the speaker shitshow and the threat of a shutdown IMO.