Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are ads for the royal navy, army and air force targeting women? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    50% built here doesn't make it a domestic fighter jet since the us gives us the blueprint and the essential parts. I also stated that we have now become reliant on the united states I'm talking about the present time.
    Why does that matter? The aircraft we own are ours. We can do what we like to them. Fit them with whatever weapons we want. Why is working with another world expert in order to pool resources and share / reduce costs a bad thing?

    'Enough' would be when we have more potential fighter jets than France or atleast Turkey.
    Why?

    That's an entirely meaningless statement. You're talking gibberish.

    And it has absolutely nothing to do with your (incorrect) assertion that the recruitment is aimed only at women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProStacker)
    Your 'point' is wrong. Your subsequent assumptions are wrong that you have derived from your 'point' and the 'evidence' that you are reliant upon.

    Firstly - have you looked at ALL of the adverts used by the Armed Forces in the last 12 months? (hint. If you haven't and are using only those that fit your bias, your 'point' is wrong).
    Secondly - women are just as good, if not better, at many of the roles in the Armed Forces. Do you know there are roles other than 'infantry' in the Armed Forces? (just so you know - your 'references' talk about a minority of roles and your continued use is subjectivity). Appealing to an under-represented segment of the population - who are more than capable enough to do many roles - is a smart move.
    Thirdly - the Armed Forces has always had cycles of recruitment - feast and famine if you will. (hint - saying 'military was never this desperate to fill vacancies' without a reference or data is only your opinion and to be discounted)

    Define 'decline'. (hint - your assertions over capability being directly tied to numbers and nothing else is ludicrous). What would be the point in having a military so big it crippled the economy? What would all these tough men do?

    Lower budget? We as a nation spend more GDP than most on military capability (hint - look that up and do some sums as to how much a nation can afford to spend on military capability as well as everything else).

    You base military capability on sovereign ability to build a fighter jet? You really need to look at the military industry in the UK and think on that one.

    Here's some links to the role-finding parts of the RN, Army & RAF careers websites. You'd do well to educate yourself as to the roles undertaken by the Armed Forces and note which ones need not be undertaken by one of your 'men'. That list might be longer than you currently think.

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/role-finder

    https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/

    I'm going to address your points one by one. First, a lot of the adverts involve women especially the recent adverts this year for the navy, army and airforce part of the reason why I started this thread. Second, I never said women can't be good in combat or military roles, it's just that we aren't recruiting the right women. In addition to this, lower physical standards for women isn't fair and counts as special treatment. Third, we have lower number of military personnel every decade. I haven't seen this level of ad campaigns from the military for quite a while but yes ever since a voluntary system was introduced the military has had struggles with recruitment.

    Our budget has decreased in terms of pure numbers and the government has reduced funding but you consider this OK since its big in comparison to other countries? Therefore, even if our military is in decline it's OK since everyone else is in decline too? You know at this rate Saudi Arabia is expected to spend more on their military than we do?

    To your point on military jets, Yes, I expect us to produce our own domestic fighter jets given that France, turkey, china, Russia, south Korea and India all have plans to built 5th generation fighter jets of there own.

    To your final point, I repeat I never stated that women can't take pat in combat roles.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why does that matter? The aircraft we own are ours. We can do what we like to them. Fit them with whatever weapons we want. Why is working with another world expert in order to pool resources and share / reduce costs a bad thing?



    Why?

    That's an entirely meaningless statement. You're talking gibberish.

    And it has absolutely nothing to do with your (incorrect) assertion that the recruitment is aimed only at women.
    It still demonstrates that the military is in decline since we are relying on our allies for fighter jets and equipment. We should be capable of producing our own but only if funding increases.

    You'd rather Turkey and France have a superior airforce? and yes this specific point is about how our capabilities compare to to other nations than women in particular.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    It still demonstrates that the military is in decline since we are relying on our allies for fighter jets and equipment. We should be capable of producing our own but only if funding increases.
    It only demonstrates that in your head. And that's only because you haven't got a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

    We are perfectly capable of producing our own. That we choose not to is largely a political decision.

    You'd rather Turkey and France have a superior airforce? and yes this specific point is about how our capabilities compare to to other nations than women in particular.
    Why do you assume that building your own jets makes them better? France aside - and that's debatable - all those countries you mention build crap. Why would we want to compete with that? The equipment we have is better. It's more capable, has a longer life, uses more modern equipment, is more effective in action and beats the products of other countries.

    Again. You don't know what you're talking about. This is getting boring now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It only demonstrates that in your head. And that's only because you haven't got a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

    We are perfectly capable of producing our own. That we choose not to is largely a political decision.



    Why do you assume that building your own jets makes them better? France aside - and that's debatable - all those countries you mention build crap. Why would we want to compete with that? The equipment we have is better. It's more capable, has a longer life, uses more modern equipment, is more effective in action and beats the products of other countries.

    Again. You don't know what you're talking about. This is getting boring now.
    I'd warn you to use more respectful language here. If we are capable of producing our own we would have produced our own, the reason we can't is because the military is in decline

    To address your second point,Turkey is buying more F-35s than we are and are planning to build there own 5th generation aircraft that is far from crap since our aerospace industry is helping them do it. Turkeys military is undergoing a great amount of modernisation and if they achieve their plans they'd end up with a superior airforce. France arguably has a superior airforce with a higher number modern fighter jets 223 in comparison to the UK that has 135,I won't count the tornado jets since they're obsolete.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I'd warn you to use more respectful language here. If we are capable of producing our own we would have produced our own, the reason we can't is because the military is in decline
    Deal with it.

    No. Re-read that link about logical fallacies. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

    Ffs, we build our own ships and submarines which are far more complicated.

    To address your second point,Turkey is buying more F-35s than we are and are planning to build there own 5th generation aircraft that is far from crap since our aerospace industry is helping them do it. Turkeys military is undergoing a great amount of modernisation and if they achieve their plans they'd end up with a superior airforce. France arguably has a superior airforce with a higher number modern fighter jets 223 in comparison to the UK that has 135,I won't count the tornado jets since they're obsolete.
    Again, nonsense.
    1, you can't discount the Tornado, is far from obsolete. It is in fact one of the best aircraft in the world at what it does.
    2, if you're going to discount that you should also discount half the French fleet.
    3, Turkey will reduce the number of F35s once they process how much they cost. Their 5th gen won't be truly 5th gen, not by a long way. And the only reason they might get even slightly close is because of our expertise, gained from building a fifth/sixth gen concept aircraft ourselves. Go look up the BAE Taranis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Deal with it.

    No. Re-read that link about logical fallacies. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

    Ffs, we build our own ships and submarines which are far more complicated.



    Again, nonsense.
    1, you can't discount the Tornado, is far from obsolete. It is in fact one of the best aircraft in the world at what it does.
    2, if you're going to discount that you should also discount half the French fleet.
    3, Turkey will reduce the number of F35s once they process how much they cost. Their 5th gen won't be truly 5th gen, not by a long way. And the only reason they might get even slightly close is because of our expertise, gained from building a fifth/sixth gen concept aircraft ourselves. Go look up the BAE Taranis.
    You'd have to "Deal with" a complaint if you address me using such foul language again.

    The development of the royal navy has been impressive, especially the planned aircraft carriers since very few military forces in the world possess such capabilities it's considered a luxury.

    However, I believe most modern warfare is won in the air and our airforce would be essential to winning any modern day military conflict. If we don't produce our own fighter jets then this is a sign that we're now reliant on other countries to produce fighter jets for us. Even our nuclear arsenal is made up of us missiles. We have to have a thriving indigenous military industry but the recent budget cuts and lower F-35 order demonstrate that the military is in decline.

    All the signs of decline are there: less personnel,a lower budget and a declining indigenous military industry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You're more delusional than I thought if you truly believe what you've written in bold, not to say women can't perform those roles but if you believe they are as good as or better you're living in another planet.
    Explain to me why women cannot sit in a drone command centre and control weapons systems or pilot a drone just as well as a man. The same goes for the other roles I mentioned, along with the management roles.

    The delusional one is the person who doesn't understand that women are just as capable as men in all areas other than those involving strength and aggression.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You'd have to "Deal with" a complaint if you address me using such foul language again.

    The development of the royal navy has been impressive, especially the planned aircraft carriers since very few military forces in the world possess such capabilities it's considered a luxury.

    However, I believe most modern warfare is won in the air and our airforce would be essential to winning any modern day military conflict. If we don't produce our own fighter jets then this is a sign that we're now reliant on other countries to produce fighter jets for us. Even our nuclear arsenal is made up of us missiles. We have to have a thriving indigenous military industry but the recent budget cuts and lower F-35 order demonstrate that the military is in decline.

    All the signs of decline are there: less personnel,a lower budget and a declining indigenous military industry.
    Grow up.

    No, again you're wrong. Most people would argue that conflicts are won and lost on the ground and have done for decades. Despite being in the RAF myself, I would agree with that assertion. The 'fighter' aircraft you laud so much - despite knowing nothing about them - are not as important as you believe.

    All our Typhoons were 100% built in the UK.
    All the F35s we'll get will be built in the UK.
    The next gen UAVs we'll get will be built in the UK.

    Thus, your assertions are nonsense. Which is no surprise.

    The decline is entirely in your head. You've given nothing that represents evidence to any sensible observer. Indeed, the basic premise of this thread is incorrect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You'd have to "Deal with" a complaint if you address me using such foul language again.
    Foul language? Have you been drinking?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Explain to me why women cannot sit in a drone command centre and control weapons systems or pilot a drone just as well as a man. The same goes for the other roles I mentioned, along with the management roles.

    The delusional one is the person who doesn't understand that women are just as capable as men in all areas other than those involving strength and aggression.
    That was my point, roles in which strength and endurance are essential women don't perform well at all in comparison to men. This is due to the Lower physical standards that the military sets for women. I would argue most jobs would require a great deal of psychological tolerance to violence and aggression which studies have shown women have less of. We need to recruit the right women for the military and they should meet equal physical standards in comparison to men that serve. That is what true equality means, the state of being treated equally. Why should the military have to advertise jobs to the female populace if it wasn't desperate and in decline given these facts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    We need to recruit the right women for the military and they should meet equal physical standards in comparison to men that serve. That is what true equality means, the state of being treated equally.
    You are clearly more concerned with giving misogynistic messages than with discussing what is practical, acceptable and sensible in the real world. Goodbye.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I would argue most jobs would require a great deal of psychological tolerance to violence and aggression.
    You would.

    Doesn't mean you're right. The overwhelming majority of roles in the armed forces have nothing whatsoever to do with those qualities. You're living off an outdated and quite frankly very immature view of what the armed forces are and do.

    This outdated stereotype you have clung to so rigidly is what is serving you so poorly in this thread.

    Until you get a more modern understanding of the armed forces - based on reality - your assertions and conclusions will never be correct.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Grow up.

    No, again you're wrong. Most people would argue that conflicts are won and lost on the ground and have done for decades. Despite being in the RAF myself, I would agree with that assertion. The 'fighter' aircraft you laud so much - despite knowing nothing about them - are not as important as you believe.

    All our Typhoons were 100% built in the UK.
    All the F35s we'll get will be built in the UK.
    The next gen UAVs we'll get will be built in the UK.

    Thus, your assertions are nonsense. Which is no surprise.

    The decline is entirely in your head. You've given nothing that represents evidence to any sensible observer. Indeed, the basic premise of this thread is incorrect.
    You just stated the F-35 are only 50% built in the UK. If you claim modern military conflicts are not won in the air then why do we bother sending fighter jets in syria and Iraq to bomb ISIL. If fighter jets are not so important than our efforts to destroy ISIS are ineffective according to you?

    You haven't even touched my points on the budget or military personnel. You purposely ignoring these points to discredit my argument. It's almost like you're desperate to prove your points that you resort to ignoring a number of important points I argue.

    I'm starting to doubt whether you ever truly served the Air Force after arguing that fighter jets aren't essential for modern warfare.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You would.

    Doesn't mean you're right. The overwhelming majority of roles in the armed forces have nothing whatsoever to do with those qualities. You're living off an outdated and quite frankly very immature view of what the armed forces are and do.

    This outdated stereotype you have clung to so rigidly is what is serving you so poorly in this thread.

    Until you get a more modern understanding of the armed forces - based on reality - your assertions and conclusions will never be correct.
    I didn't know most military jobs were desk jobs, if so the military is more pathetic than I thought. Are you seriously stating that the military shouldn't have high physical standards for women as they do men? I consider that sexist. Most roles even management roles require the characteristic I mention. We shouldn't Lower the standards of our military because you think that's progress. Soon you'd argue UAVs should replace fighter jets and most personnel should sit on their arses all day.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You just stated the F-35 are only 50% built in the UK. If you claim modern military conflicts are not won in the air then why do we bother sending fighter jets in syria and Iraq to bomb ISIL. If fighter jets are not so important than our efforts to destroy ISIS are ineffective according to you?
    Stating - correctly - that combat aircraft alone do not win wars =/= the statement they are unimportant. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

    You haven't even touched my points on the budget or military personnel. You purposely ignoring these points to discredit my argument. It's almost like you're desperate to prove your points that you resort to ignoring a number of important points I argue.
    That's because, like many points in this thread, it's already been covered but you choose to ignore it.

    Our budget is not what it was when we were fighting a total war. Sure. Why do you think it should be? It really shouldn't.

    Our personnel numbers are not the same as they were when we were fighting a total war. Sure. Why do you think they should be? I've already spoken about how we're massive orders of magnitude more efficient than we were in those days. We simply don't need that many people to do the same jobs. Why are you so insistent on wasting money?

    I'm starting to doubt whether you ever truly served the Air Force after arguing that fighter jets aren't essential for modern warfare.
    Again, you need to learn to read. And I really don't care what you believe, you've already proven yourself less educated than the average piece of roadkill.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Soon you'd argue UAVs should replace fighter jets and most personnel should sit on their arses all day.
    If you knew anything about the subject you'd know that that's exactly what is going to happen.

    In the next 20-30 years piloted combat aircraft won't exist in modern air forces.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    If you knew anything about the subject you'd know that that's exactly what is going to happen.

    In the next 20-30 years piloted combat aircraft won't exist in modern air forces.
    No UAV can currently match the capabilities of 5th generation fighter jets , we're not at that stage yet so I wouldn't speculate if I were you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Stating - correctly - that combat aircraft alone do not win wars =/= the statement they are unimportant. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.



    That's because, like many points in this thread, it's already been covered but you choose to ignore it.

    Our budget is not what it was when we were fighting a total war. Sure. Why do you think it should be? It really shouldn't.

    Our personnel numbers are not the same as they were when we were fighting a total war. Sure. Why do you think they should be? I've already spoken about how we're massive orders of magnitude more efficient than we were in those days. We simply don't need that many people to do the same jobs. Why are you so insistent on wasting money?



    Again, you need to learn to read. And I really don't care what you believe, you've already proven yourself less educated than the average piece of roadkill.
    To quote you "The 'fighter' aircraft you laud so much - despite knowing nothing about them - are not as important as you believe" since you don't know what I believe I assume you state that they aren't important.

    I haven't ignored it and no I don't expect the personnel to be the same since WWII. We have less military personnel than France and Turkey also relative to our population. Since when do lower personnel mean greater military capabilities even with advances in military technology?

    Your insult at the end is meaningless and just proves my point that you're desperate to discredit my argument.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    No UAV can currently match the capabilities of 5th generation fighter jets , we're not at that stage yet so I wouldn't speculate if I were you.
    Hence the 20-30yrs comment.

    Do some research. Look up the X47, look up the Taranis. Stealthy UCAVs are only a year or two away from production, including carrier borne aircraft for the USN. At that point they will be able to do everything an F35 can do, for less than half the cost and without putting a pilot at risk in direct combat.

    This isn't speculation, its fact. Which you'd know if you researched the topic. I urge you to do so.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.