Marco Esquandolas wrote:
Dumb Navy wrote:
That's ridiculous to make the very smart and intelligent people we want for the US Navy do stupid training that has nothing to do with sailing on a boat.
Just remember, as taxpayers we’ll be paying for servicemen’s health care. We may want to maintain some sort of minimum standard of health in order to contain costs.
If a guy runs 18:06, USA taxpayers will pay for him to become "her" and qualify.
Dumb Navy wrote:
That's ridiculous to make the very smart and intelligent people we want for the US Navy do stupid training that has nothing to do with sailing on a boat.
Apparently the qualifications for being an actual sailor are soft too.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/navy-ships-training-expired/index.htmlVery quickly,
The reason why there were many training accidents are because of the cutbacks on the military under Obama within the last 8 years or so. I was part of the understaffing. Forced retirements and merging rates. The Navy is now undermanned and these sailors are working more hours. Also another thing to remember when it comes to IQ is that the Navy, Coast Guard, and the Air Force is more technical then the Marines and the Army. However, the Marines has tougher physical stats. Going into the latter is easier to get into then the former. Also becoming an officer is easier with the Marines and the Army. The Navy, Coast Guard, and the Air Force are looking for Bachelor of Science degrees while the Army and the Marines you can have a degree in basket weaving. To my surprise, you are seeing more people with college degrees in ENLISTED in the Navy. Crazy.
Crusty Old Runner wrote:
Are you kidding with these times??? I had to read this twice to make sure these old eyes weren't deceiving me. I'm 57, been running for 30+ yrs and have a plethora of chronic injuries (ruptured PTT, ankle OA, Achilles tendonosis, patellar tendonitis, chronic back pain). Plus I'm not exactly built for distance running (5-7, 165). Despite these injuries and with limited mileage (20 mpw), I can currently run a 1.5 mile in 10:30, and a 3 miler in around 22:30.
So, and old fart like me with a "rupture PTT, ankle OA & chronic back pain" can blow away these minimum qualifying times for the run distances? Too funny! ?
Way to make it about you!
Newsflash for you, buddy - you are not in any way relevant.
Crusty Old Runner wrote:
Are you kidding with these times??? I had to read this twice to make sure these old eyes weren't deceiving me. I'm 57, been running for 30+ yrs and have a plethora of chronic injuries (ruptured PTT, ankle OA, Achilles tendonosis, patellar tendonitis, chronic back pain). Plus I'm not exactly built for distance running (5-7, 165). Despite these injuries and with limited mileage (20 mpw), I can currently run a 1.5 mile in 10:30, and a 3 miler in around 22:30.
So, and old fart like me with a "rupture PTT, ankle OA & chronic back pain" can blow away these minimum qualifying times for the run distances? Too funny! ?
You da true MVP
Weigh Mo wrote:
Way to make it about you!
Newsflash for you, buddy - you are not in any way relevant.
Who the Fuvk said it was about me "buddy?" I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous the running standards are if some old broken down guy with a plethora of chronic injuries like me can not only make the standards but make them with with plenty of room to spare! If you don't think there's something wrong with those standards you're either clueless or perhaps you couldn't pass them. ? Btw, I don't think you're very revelant either...you sound like some young dope that trolls these forums (trolls on LRC?...hard to imagine. Lol).
Beavus wrote:
As a current member of the Navy, this really isn't that shocking to me. I am designated as the "Command Fitness Leader" for my squadron, which basically means I am in charge of ensuring all the fat kids don't fail their PT Test. It's pretty disheartening to maintain a good level of fitness as an individual, and make yourself available for running/workout regimens, but to still be asked prior to every PRT, "What's the minimum for me to pass?" In those Sailors' defense, there are no measurable benefits to doing well on the PRT, as a Satisfactory Score and a Max are all put into your FITREP (Evaluation that basically measures how good or terrible of a military member you are) as a "P." However, just to illustrate that a 16:10 is not a passing score, here are the score charts for males and females age 17-19 (General age of bootcampers). Most score in the good to excellent range out of bootcamp and decline from there.
Navy Male & Female Physical Readiness Test (PRT) Charts
Physical Readiness Test (PRT) Chart for Males: 17-19 Years of Age.
Performance Level: Curl-ups/Push-ups/1.5-mile run
-Maximum: 109/ 92/ 8:15
-Outstanding 102/ 86/ 9:00
-Excellent 90/76/9:45
-Good 62/51/11:00
-Satisfactory 50/42/12:30
Physical Readiness Test (PRT) Chart for Females: 17-19 Years of Age.
Performance Level: Curl-ups/Push-ups/1.5-mile run
-Maximum: 109/ 51/ 9:29
-Outstanding: 102/ 47/ 11:30
-Excellent: 90/ 42/ 12:30
-Good: 62/ 24/ 13:30
-Satisfactory: 50/ 19/ 15:00
Why is the PRT test distance 1.5 miles? What is special about that distance? Just curious. Seems like 3K or 5K would be more natural.
Why 1.5 miles? wrote:
Why is the PRT test distance 1.5 miles? What is special about that distance? Just curious. Seems like 3K or 5K would be more natural.
USA can't go metric. (Though some of the government does technically require A4 paper by now)
Those are easy standards
Female Marine recruits, on the other hand, have 31 minutes to run three miles and males have to complete the same distance in 28 minutes.
Disgusting sexism at play here. The required times should be exactly the same for males and females across all the armed forces.
In the field of combat are the enemy going to give woman a head start because they're woman?!!
SJW Princess wrote:
Female Marine recruits, on the other hand, have 31 minutes to run three miles and males have to complete the same distance in 28 minutes.
Disgusting sexism at play here. The required times should be exactly the same for males and females across all the armed forces.
In the field of combat are the enemy going to give woman a head start because they're woman?!!
I agree they should require the same times.
But giving them a head start is like making them run different distances. Maybe men have 15 minutes to run 1.5 miles, and women to run 1.3 miles?
Boot Camper wrote:
Although the standard is easy to meet compared to other services, the Navy will still allow potential recruits who fail the test to try their hand at it again within 48 hours. If they don’t meet the standard at that point in time, they will be cut. Recruits will still be able to apply to Navy Recruiting Command at a later date, if they so choose.
Female Marine recruits, on the other hand, have 31 minutes to run three miles and males have to complete the same distance in 28 minutes.
Up until now, the Navy has been the only service without an initial fitness test, but now Navy officials are implementing the new standard, which will come into effect starting Jan. 1, 2018.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/11/15/navy-recruits-soon-have-prove-they-can-run-before-boot-camp.htmlIn the Marine Corps, the initial strength test includes pullups, situps, ammo can lifts, and a one-and-a-half-mile run. For male recruits, the run must be completed in 13 minutes, 30 seconds. Female recruits have 15 minutes to finish.
The Air Force requires new recruits to complete a run of the same distance in a recommended 13 minutes, 45 seconds for men and 16 minutes, one second for women. Pushups and situps are also included in the test.
The Army, which also requires pushups and situps, has prospective enlistees complete a one-mile run before they start training. Men have 8 minutes, 30 seconds for the run, while women have 10 minutes, 30 seconds.
'Running Art aka Alan' is back posting again. Welcome back, Alan.
Navy Vet/College Coach wrote:
Very quickly,
The reason why there were many training accidents are because of the cutbacks on the military under Obama within the last 8 years or so. I was part of the understaffing. Forced retirements and merging rates. The Navy is now undermanned and these sailors are working more hours. Also another thing to remember when it comes to IQ is that the Navy, Coast Guard, and the Air Force is more technical then the Marines and the Army. However, the Marines has tougher physical stats. Going into the latter is easier to get into then the former. Also becoming an officer is easier with the Marines and the Army. The Navy, Coast Guard, and the Air Force are looking for Bachelor of Science degrees while the Army and the Marines you can have a degree in basket weaving. To my surprise, you are seeing more people with college degrees in ENLISTED in the Navy. Crazy.
The USN being undermanned as you stated is Military Industrial Complex Propaganda. The largest air force in the world, US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world, USN.
Bragging about all the enlisted sailors with four year degrees is really a shame. The US military has become an employer of last resort. We need educated people in the private sector and/or local, state and federal government. It's a shame all those bright educated people in USN wasting their talents, piloting submarines. It's inefficient to have a large bloated military.
We in US are engaged in "Weaponized Economics." Munition plants are built in nearly every US Congressional District. Nearly every US Congressman votes for a larger and larger military because of munitions producers in their district. The Opportunity Cost of weaponized economics is money not placed in public schools, money not placed in public universities, money not placed in public hospitals, money not placed in airport construction, money not placed in light rail and money not placed in high speed rail. Weaponized Economics in the long run always fails. See the former Soviet Union. See the former British Empire. See the former Spanish Empire. See the former Roman Empire.
Why 1.5 miles? wrote:
Why is the PRT test distance 1.5 miles? What is special about that distance? Just curious. Seems like 3K or 5K would be more natural.
Maybe speed plus endurance? To run a fast 1.5 you've got to have some wheels and not just pure endurance.
1.5 is the distance to my outhouse wrote:
To run a fast 1.5 you've got to have some wheels and not just pure endurance.
But they aren't asking for a "fast" 1.5mi...
LoneStarXC wrote:
Those are easy standards
They still have a eye exam?
Navy keeps running into other peoples boats...a lot.
Powerlifters probably aren't impressed by their strength standards, either.
Yikes!! Although I understand your post and respect it, I do disagree with you on most things but agree with you on a few things. Several things coming in play here.
1. When I was in the Navy the first time, before college, we were highly undermanned after severe budget cuts. This led to rating mergers, forced retirements, and lack of safe equipment. We lost lives due to this.
2. After 9/11, I was called up to the Middle East as a reservist while I was in college. The reasoning for this was because of the budget cuts and downsizing during the Clinton administration (by the way....I hate politics and I am an independent meaning I don't side with parties). I remember since they had the budget cuts I was walking around with old weapons that were unsafe and needed much maintenance.
3. I am only speaking on the Navy side of things and not the rest of the branches. But the Navy is very technical. "Piloting submarines" meaning you need a full engineering background. Before you "pilot submarines" you go through an extensive 3 year nuclear school learning science, math, physics. As a side job, I coach marathoners and half marathoners now. I have met engineers doing the same stuff. Some went to college and some were in the Navy...enlisted. They never went to college, but are doing the same engineering stuff the guy who went to college making the same amount of money. Some rates that end out turning good in their careers that absolutely need no college degrees are corpsman (nurses in the civilian world), IT, electrical work, radar men, etc. The Navy doesn't shoot guns, (unless you are involved with security or a Navy Seal). I have met so many great nurses, doctors, engineers that started as ENLISTED in the Navy.
4. The Navy changed my life man. My dad was a poor immigrant and a refugee. I grew up in a low income neighborhood and my mom was an alcoholic. I enlisted because it gave me great opportunities. Recruiters do lie, but mine didn't and even today we are good friends. He specifically told me if I wanted to do this when I enlisted, but even though I was a punk, I was still responsible and the Navy did wonders for me. I got my free college education for serving this country. Since I was a kid I wanted to be in the military. My dad, a factory worker for 45 years, told me to go to the Navy instead of the Army because it was more technical and you learn so much...discipline, respect, and more opportunities to learn stuff "without shooting a gun" (those were his words...lol). Why wouldn't you want to serve your country? This country gave my father, who was in long bread lines in his country before he came here and half of his family was either executed or deported for their ethnicity before he escaped, so many opportunities and benefits that most countries wish we had. So yea....after what happened to my family I went straight to the military.
5. The two traditional colleges I went too had student veterans as the highest graduation amongst all groups. Unfortunately, now that is not the case as many that go to school has PTSD, and drop out but student veterans are still amongst the highest in the nation.
6. I am only speaking on the Navy side here and from my experience. Sure I had my ups and downs, but a military will always be needed and I will always support them. I have been around the world and I lost half of my family in their countries....so I understand what they think in their countries, etc. I HATE WAR....so don't get me wrong. But other countries LOVE WAR (i.e. Russia) and we need a military to defend our country.
7. I agree that we need to put more money in our schools, hospitals, etc. The Troops to Teachers program is a great program sending veterans into teaching into low income neighborhoods and has been a VERY successful program. I work in a school district right now and one thing low income schools need badly are good disciplined teachers. Special education teachers are in dire need and nobody wants to do it. Guess who does it? Veterans.
Easy to blame Obama, but this goes way back. New ships and weapon systems work on a much longer timeline and we have had dysfunctional government for a long time, with Congress unable to pass budgets and doing everything on continuing resolutions and playing brinksmanship without the nation ever having clear strategic priorities and funding them. In the meantime, the Navy has been badly overworked and much of the budget gets sucked up by things like the F-35 and not things that matter now on a day-to-day basis. The 7th Fleet in particular is badly overworked and therefore undertrained.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-u-s-navy-faces-a-reckoning-after-two-disastrous-an-1820067583
Military Veteran/College Coach wrote:
Yikes!! Although I understand your post and respect it, I do disagree with you on most things but agree with you on a few things. Several things coming in play here.
1. When I was in the Navy the first time, before college, we were highly undermanned after severe budget cuts. This led to rating mergers, forced retirements, and lack of safe equipment. We lost lives due to this.
2. After 9/11, I was called up to the Middle East as a reservist while I was in college. The reasoning for this was because of the budget cuts and downsizing during the Clinton administration (by the way....I hate politics and I am an independent meaning I don't side with parties). I remember since they had the budget cuts I was walking around with old weapons that were unsafe and needed much maintenance.
3. I am only speaking on the Navy side of things and not the rest of the branches. But the Navy is very technical. "Piloting submarines" meaning you need a full engineering background. Before you "pilot submarines" you go through an extensive 3 year nuclear school learning science, math, physics. As a side job, I coach marathoners and half marathoners now. I have met engineers doing the same stuff. Some went to college and some were in the Navy...enlisted. They never went to college, but are doing the same engineering stuff the guy who went to college making the same amount of money. Some rates that end out turning good in their careers that absolutely need no college degrees are corpsman (nurses in the civilian world), IT, electrical work, radar men, etc. The Navy doesn't shoot guns, (unless you are involved with security or a Navy Seal). I have met so many great nurses, doctors, engineers that started as ENLISTED in the Navy.
4. The Navy changed my life man. My dad was a poor immigrant and a refugee. I grew up in a low income neighborhood and my mom was an alcoholic. I enlisted because it gave me great opportunities. Recruiters do lie, but mine didn't and even today we are good friends. He specifically told me if I wanted to do this when I enlisted, but even though I was a punk, I was still responsible and the Navy did wonders for me. I got my free college education for serving this country. Since I was a kid I wanted to be in the military. My dad, a factory worker for 45 years, told me to go to the Navy instead of the Army because it was more technical and you learn so much...discipline, respect, and more opportunities to learn stuff "without shooting a gun" (those were his words...lol). Why wouldn't you want to serve your country? This country gave my father, who was in long bread lines in his country before he came here and half of his family was either executed or deported for their ethnicity before he escaped, so many opportunities and benefits that most countries wish we had. So yea....after what happened to my family I went straight to the military.
5. The two traditional colleges I went too had student veterans as the highest graduation amongst all groups. Unfortunately, now that is not the case as many that go to school has PTSD, and drop out but student veterans are still amongst the highest in the nation.
6. I am only speaking on the Navy side here and from my experience. Sure I had my ups and downs, but a military will always be needed and I will always support them. I have been around the world and I lost half of my family in their countries....so I understand what they think in their countries, etc. I HATE WAR....so don't get me wrong. But other countries LOVE WAR (i.e. Russia) and we need a military to defend our country.
7. I agree that we need to put more money in our schools, hospitals, etc. The Troops to Teachers program is a great program sending veterans into teaching into low income neighborhoods and has been a VERY successful program. I work in a school district right now and one thing low income schools need badly are good disciplined teachers. Special education teachers are in dire need and nobody wants to do it. Guess who does it? Veterans.
You say you are politically independent. I'm curious as to which of the major issues you are in agreement with on the liberal side. And how does that compare with the Republican side of things. Also, do you think that you need to be in 100% agreement with a party line to associate yourself with said party?