Comparative
information on US and Australian Special Forces Selection attrition
rates:
(This information is derived
from a 1999 study by the RAND corporation commissioned by the US
DOD, and information supplied by the Australian DOD and Recruiters)
Introduction
The following statistics are
interesting for several reasons. First they demonstrate the relative
difficulty applicants have in gaining access to various Special
Forces groups. Secondly they bring to light some interesting and
somewhat counterintuitive conclusions and put to rest several
ridiculous claims about pass rates. Finally, they illustrate how
proper preparation for SF selection can decrease attrition rates.
The picture of Australian SF is
both more and less clear in some areas than the information
available on US SF. For example, below you will find separate
statistics for Officer and Enlisted attrition rates for American SF,
but that level of detail is lacking for Australian SF (partly
because almost all SF positions in Australian are non-officer
roles). At the same time, below you will find information on passing
various assessments to actually try to pass selection in the first
place where information like this is absent for American Forces (or
at least it was not included in any great depth in the RAND study
except to mention that ASVAB {testing} scores and swimming tests
continue to be a barrier to minority participation in US SF).
The study separated White and
Minority statistics to establish what barriers minorities face in
gaining entrance to the Special Forces so as to ensure that they are
better represented than present rates suggest they are. The
statistics are represented here so as to compare Australian and
American selection attrition rates for their respective Special
Forces units.
Statistics
Pass Rate for the Q Course (US Army SF officers)
These
pass rates have been taken from The Ranger Training Brigade's
website. The data is the cumulative average of 18 classes and can be
found
here
Pass
rates for BUDS (SEAL selection). The improvement in pass rates over
the years is attributed in the RAND study to better candidate
preparation in both physical and academic areas - especially
swimming and navigation.
Pass rates for Australian Special
forces. the spread here represents poor data records. The Aus DOD
has recently commented that an SASR class has gone through achieving
a very good result of nearly 39% pass rate , but the average rate is
known to be less than this (27-30%)
(source). Similarly Commandos are a relatively young special
forces group with only a few years of statistics available but
recruiters say that it is typical for less than half to pass. The
Direct Entry Program has a bearing on the pass rates (reflecting the
lower pass rates). Commando applicants already in the ADF enjoy a
better pass rate (nearly 50%) than their direct entry counterparts.
US SEALs, Rangers, and Special Forces also have direct entry
programs which is also known to negatively impact the pass rate.
Conclusions
While a systematic study has yet
to be completed on attrition rates (though one is in progress) as
has been done in America's case, there has been enough information
from Aus DOD releases to assess the current state of AusSF attrition
rates.
A few surprising conclusions can
be drawn from the study
-
Rangers suffer a greater
attrition rate than Army Special Forces (Green Berets) contrary to
popular belief, but are formally trained for a significantly
shorter period of time. Despite that, their ongoing training is
very rigorous.
-
While the graph is not
represented here US Air Force SF suffer a greater attrition rate
than any of the above SF groups. The pass rate for ParaRescumen
was only 10%.
-
Australia's SF Commandos pass
rate is directly comparable to US Army SF, Rangers and the 1997
SEAL pass rates, and the SASR average failure rate is higher than
any other group represented above.
It is important to note that these
figures do not in any way equate to a judgment on which group is
"the best". Such comparisons are misleading and fairly useless since
each groups, by definition, is differently tasked - passing
selection has little to nothing to do with how proficient a special
forces soldier a person is. There are however discrepancies between
groups regarding the training time required to get the operators to
the point where they may see combat.
-
SEAL spend 6 months at BUDS and
then undergo a 6 month probationary period during which time they
train with an active SEAL team.
(source)
-
Army Special Forces "Q-course"
can last anywhere between 23 and 54 weeks depending on a soldiers
specialty (MOS). They are superbly trained in their specialty and
cross train with others to acquire their skills.
-
SASR training is 1.5 years long
and is very similar to the British training regime albeit with
slightly more focus on desert warfare.
-
Special Operations Commander,
Major Duncan Lewis, has stated that Commandos successful at
passing selection will take "18 months to reach the elite level
where they may see military action". This includes a 2 month
"accelerated training curriculum" as well as 8 separate Commando
schools. After this training and a year in their unit they can
undergo further training in up to 10 schools including recon,
sniper, and Counterterrorism. All of this training is usually in
addition to a 3 month Advanced Infantry course though there are
exceptions.
(source)
(source)
-
US Army Rangers undergo Ranger
Indoctrination Program (RIP) and Parachute School and are then
placed somewhere in the 75th Ranger Regiment for between 5 and 18
months before going to Ranger school, which is 60 days long. In
total, RIP, Airborne school and Ranger school is 3.5 months long
and is completed on top of the 8 week Advanced Infantry course.(source)
Thus if one considers the number
of training month dedicated to the special forces soldier Australian
SF are engaged in training for longer than there American
counterparts. The one exception to this is the US Army SF soldier
specialising in either Medicine or Communications which takes longer
than Commando training.
The complete RAND study is
here
|