Freedom0820 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 My link Are the Blue Angels going to bid us farewell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 My link Are the Blue Angels going to bid us farewell. Anyone else find this statement a bit amusing? Some readers of the Air Force Times newspaper -- most of them active or retired service members -- recently listed eliminating the Blue Angels and similar programs as one way to cut defense spending. I'm willing to bet that if they took a poll of Navy Times readers, most would wholeheartedly support eliminating the Thunderbirds. This issue came up on a thread a while back and before it turned into a p----ing contest, the consensus was that this will never happen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
utley Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Even if they did, they wont stand down the pilots or the aircraft, they will just ship both to an active unit. Besides...both are recruiting tools, as well as marketing a specific aircraft. Lockheed and Boeing are sponsors of both the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels. Wouldnt make sense cutting them anyways... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 $37 Million is CHUMP CHANGE... The cost of putting the 8 F-18's back into fleet service with the pilots and ground crew would not disappear if the Blues were grounded. So much of that $37 Million would be eaten up by these airframes returning to fleet service and more so the crews both air and ground. So what does $37 Million get the USA? 1: Easy and popular recruitment tool. 2: Keeps "FLY NAVY" in the eyes and on the mind of citizens in the USA. 3: Flying Ambassadors both internally but more so when the Blues fly outside the USA (BTW not enough of the latter IMO). 4: Relatively cheap entertainment to the typical and for many the maxed out tax payer who sees so much money squandered by bureaucracy, corrupt cronies and banking elites who have mostly bought your govt. as well as govt. pet projects. The amount of money the DoD waste especially on its bloated bureaucracy and too much brass in position of keeping their personal careers going is way more than the cost of the Blues, Thunderbirds and Golden Knights. This will not save DoD and the tax payer ONE PENNY. The money there will only be pi$$ed away elsewhere in the DoD. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Blues ain't going anywhere. Forget the bargain basement price the Navy is paying for this recruiting and goodwill display, forget the taxpayers who deserve to see their tax dollars put to good use, and forget how insanely popular the program is. Congress would be up in arms because wherever the Blues go it draws people by the thousands and they spend money in that congressman’s district. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 $37 Million is CHUMP CHANGE... The cost of putting the 8 F-18's back into fleet service with the pilots and ground crew would not disappear if the Blues were grounded. So much of that $37 Million would be eaten up by these airframes returning to fleet service and more so the crews both air and ground. So what does $37 Million get the USA? 1: Easy and popular recruitment tool. 2: Keeps "FLY NAVY" in the eyes and on the mind of citizens in the USA. 3: Flying Ambassadors both internally but more so when the Blues fly outside the USA (BTW not enough of the latter IMO). 4: Relatively cheap entertainment to the typical and for many the maxed out tax payer who sees so much money squandered by bureaucracy, corrupt cronies and banking elites who have mostly bought your govt. as well as govt. pet projects. The amount of money the DoD waste especially on its bloated bureaucracy and too much brass in position of keeping their personal careers going is way more than the cost of the Blues, Thunderbirds and Golden Knights. This will not save DoD and the tax payer ONE PENNY. The money there will only be pi$$ed away elsewhere in the DoD. you are forgetting that we're talking about a bureaucracy here, the smart moves are seldom the first ones made... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 you are forgetting that we're talking about a bureaucracy here, the smart moves are seldom the first ones made... Yes, but I trust politics will keep the idiots in bureaucracy from doing such a silly thing. Politicians do not want to inflame the populous with what is a minor cost and a major PR headache for them if they tried. The Blues cost each tax payer of the USA about $10.00 per year in taxes paid/budgeted for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
afspret Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 All three should cut all overseas shows (inc Hawaii, Alaska & Guam) and performances at events that are more the 50 miles from nearest military air field. This means no parking at purely civvie airports, where I'm sure ramp fees would apply, as well as likely higher fuel prices & not to mention the cost for security. All those involved with the various teams should also be put up in on-base billeting and use purely government transportation, which means no more fancy rental cars & vans, and they should also eat in the chow halls or on base clubs (like the average troop who goes on a TDY). Another option to consider is cutting the number of shows they put on, i.e. only one display at mulit-day events. Totally cutting out these teams, in my mind, is not an option. I'm sure if the bean counters sat down and seriously took a look, they could find a way let them live on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I know at a lot of shows, the Blues and T-Birds are provided with "Courtesy Cars" from local car dealerships, etc ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 All three should cut all overseas shows (inc Hawaii, Alaska & Guam) and performances at events that are more the 50 miles from nearest military air field. This means no parking at purely civvie airports, where I'm sure ramp fees would apply, as well as likely higher fuel prices & not to mention the cost for security. All those involved with the various teams should also be put up in on-base billeting and use purely government transportation, which means no more fancy rental cars & vans, and they should also eat in the chow halls or on base clubs (like the average troop who goes on a TDY). Another option to consider is cutting the number of shows they put on, i.e. only one display at mulit-day events. Totally cutting out these teams, in my mind, is not an option. I'm sure if the bean counters sat down and seriously took a look, they could find a way let them live on. You're kidding right? Last time I checked, Hawaii and Alaska were states (with tax payers). Why should they get their airshows cut in favor of the mainlanders? Guam is a little different, but I don't recall the airshow teams going there every year anyway (and there have been a few years when the Blues haven't gone to Hawaii either). As for ramp fees, many civilian airports that can handle fighters have FBOs with government contracts. Plus, many of those airports also have better facilities to handle maintenance issues with the jets compared to some bases that have runways and that capability becomes important if a jet goes down with a maintenance issue (as happens more with the Blues than the TBirds since they fly older F/A-18Cs while the Birds use Block 52 Vipers now). If it is an airshow at a civilian airport, I believe the airport has to foot the bill, NOT the display teams that are invited to attend. As for government equipment, if we are talking about a base that is dealing with budget cuts, they might not have enough vehicles in the motor pool to deal with the needs of a team and those vehicles may be needed elsewhere. So the civilian cars (which others have said are typically donated by a local dealer) become very important and not a tax burden anyway. Plus you've got the disruption to base quarters for housing of a large team. Some bases have people going in and out all the time and quarters are not so readily available. We aren't just talking about putting up the pilots, but also the maintenance guys, the team doctors, the PR people. It is a whole unit. Not every base can do that. As for one show on multi-day events, I don't see that either as it won't mean much overall. The teams typically do a couple days of practice anyway to get used to the area and one of those practices is a show for people like special needs kids. The practices are vital before the public comes to watch as you can't do this cold. Then they have the Saturday and Sunday shows. So, factoring the fuel burned for the practices AND the shows and cutting one day of performance doesn't mean much of a savings, if at all. Plus, it becomes more of a logistical hassle for the facility as the bigger crowds will obviously come on the big day and stay away for the day they aren't flying. Cutting back on the number of shows is not always a good option either as aerobatic display flying requires skills to be sharp and that takes practice. So if a team has more down time, they aren't in the air to keep their skills up and safety can suffer. When the 2004 Hurricane season messed up the Blues facilities in Pensacola, they cancelled part of their show season to go back and help with the families. But after that they ended up going to their winter training base to get back into the air since they had been out of the season for too long and they needed that time to get proficient again before going back on the road. Some little things can probably be cut, but you can't cut too deep or other problems develop. And if those problems affect safety, look out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Camus272 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 First ,this is the exact same article that was published last year, it is nothing new and there is no basis to it. Second, the Navy hasn't even cut its two F-18 demos yet, and there are proudly promoting their public relations in contrast to what the Air Force is doing. The Blue Angels aren't going anywhere. Brian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 88 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The Blues ain't going anywhere. They did their first practice show here this week since being back from El Centro. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I'm sure that the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds are very far from the chopping block. The PR nightmare that would cause would be tremendous. Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I'm willing to bet that if they took a poll of Navy Times readers, most would wholeheartedly support eliminating the Thunderbirds. Read back issues of USNI's Proceedings, to learn why the Air Force, since, oh, about 1919 or so, were thieves, liars, charlatans, probably terrorists, definitely communists, and all around a big waste of money. ...and to the original point, I think the linked article that started this thread is classic link-bait to generate internet traffic. As a newspaper in the internet age Star-Advertiser thanks you for your charitable contribution to their desperate claim to drive advertising revenue through their website. That is why they reprinted a story from AP about the theoretical dissolution of the Blue Angels, not because it was a credibly serious issue in American society today. And we gotta admit, this thread is proof that it totally worked. Edited March 24, 2012 by Fishwelding Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Philp Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) The Blues were in St George, UT last weekend and I saw them (ok, saw the planes, left before they flew to beat the traffic) and from what I read put on another great show. Also performing was the US F-22 Demo Team which has now replaced Vipers East and West and the A-10 demo team. This last was a cost cutting venture to allow more training/flying time for USAF pilots. The same report stated the Angles and Birds would keep on performing. Too visible an asset IMHO. https://picasaweb.google.com/115549746726410540917/ThunderOverUtahStGeorgeAirshow2012 Edited March 24, 2012 by Philp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.