Blue Angels in Budget Cuts?

Well they are part of the military budget. The military budget that's going to be cut. So, yeah, it's possible.
 
On the radio this morning it sounded like the Thunderbirds would get caught the same say.
 
Typical tactic. Cut highly visible things in order to demonstrate pain and hope that the public relents. It's why police, schools, and garbage are cut long before far more discretionary items.
 
seand said:
Typical tactic. Cut highly visible things in order to demonstrate pain and hope that the public relents. It's why police, schools, and garbage are cut long before far more discretionary items.
Click to expand...


This.
 
When the Navy took a long, hard look at the Blues in 1973 following a string of three accidents in six months which cost the team four lives, six jets, and a broken neck for the team leader, and resulted in a CNO-directed indefinite stand-down, one of the things they did was a survey of Navy personnel on the impact of the team on the decision to join the service. The results helped convince Congress of the importance and cost-effectiveness of the team in recruiting not only pilots and NFO's, but everything else from ship drivers to paint-scrapers to paper-pushers -- all needed to keep the Navy operating. The team was reorganized, and stood back up as a squadron in the winter of 73-74 with a new look, new rules, and new standards.

I hope that sort of logical and reasoned approach is taken again this time for all the demo teams, including the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, the Golden Knights, the Leapfrogs, and the other teams which attract the talent we need for our military.
 
Maybe they just need to downsize from front line fighters to something more economical.

742322681_VQQeY-L.jpg

As far as I know, the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds are the only military demonstration teams that don't fly trainers.
 
Granted the Blue Angels are a huge recruiting tool ,we are 15 TRILLION dollars is debt and growing as I type this..... In my opinion they need to walk the halls of the Pentagon and fire a few hundred desk warming high ranking, overly paid and pension thirsty pencil pushers whos combined salary equals the cost of funding the Blue Angels. What we will get is a meaner / leaner military and the airshows will continue.:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod: ...

Unfortunately those pencil pushers have positioned themselves into a smoke and mirror act of looking essential.... :yesnod::yesnod::yesnod::yesnod: IMHO.
 
kkoran said:
Maybe they just need to downsize from front line fighters to something more economical.
Click to expand...
The USAF tried that in 1974 when they shifted from the F-4 Phantom to the T-38 Talon in order to save money. One issue that arose was wartime commitment. It was decided that as part of cost justification, the demo teams should be able to go to war if needed (as the Blue Angels did during the Korean War). The Thunderbirds transitioned to the F-16, and since then have maintained combat readiness (including weapons delivery practice in combat-ready F-16's belonging to the 474FW), and their aircraft are convertible to combat configuration in a couple of days. Ditto the Blues and their F-18's.

Also, while the teams have resisted change, the military leaders (including the civilian secretaries) have always felt it important that the teams fly front-line equipment so the public can see the capabilities of the equipment for which they are paying. That is what pushed the Thunderbirds from F-100's and the Blues from F11F's into the F-4 in 1968, and the Blues from the A-4 to the F-18 later on. In each case, they were the last unit in the US operating those aircraft, and there were a lot of issues arising from that, not the least of which was logistical support.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The USAF tried that in 1974 when they shifted from the F-4 Phantom to the T-38 Talon in order to save money. One issue that arose was wartime commitment. It was decided that as part of cost justification, the demo teams should be able to go to war if needed (as the Blue Angels did during the Korean War). The Thunderbirds transitioned to the F-16, and since then have maintained combat readiness (including weapons delivery practice in combat-ready F-16's belonging to the 474FW), and their aircraft are convertible to combat configuration in a couple of days. Ditto the Blues and their F-18's.

Also, while the teams have resisted change, the military leaders (including the civilian secretaries) have always felt it important that the teams fly front-line equipment so the public can see the capabilities of the equipment for which they are paying. That is what pushed the Thunderbirds from F-100's and the Blues from F11F's into the F-4 in 1968, and the Blues from the A-4 to the F-18 later on. In each case, they were the last unit in the US operating those aircraft, and there were a lot of issues arising from that, not the least of which was logistical support.
Click to expand...

We must remember that our government doesn't think like it did in the 70s.
 
Ron Levy said:
The USAF tried that in 1974 when they shifted from the F-4 Phantom to the T-38 Talon in order to save money. One issue that arose was wartime commitment. It was decided that as part of cost justification, the demo teams should be able to go to war if needed (as the Blue Angels did during the Korean War). The Thunderbirds transitioned to the F-16, and since then have maintained combat readiness (including weapons delivery practice in combat-ready F-16's belonging to the 474FW), and their aircraft are convertible to combat configuration in a couple of days. Ditto the Blues and their F-18's.
Click to expand...
The narrator always gives the spiel about how quickly they could deploy to combat. I figure if we we are so hard up that we need to send the demo teams, we've lost the war.
Ron Levy said:
Also, while the teams have resisted change, the military leaders (including the civilian secretaries) have always felt it important that the teams fly front-line equipment so the public can see the capabilities of the equipment for which they are paying. That is what pushed the Thunderbirds from F-100's and the Blues from F11F's into the F-4 in 1968, and the Blues from the A-4 to the F-18 later on. In each case, they were the last unit in the US operating those aircraft, and there were a lot of issues arising from that, not the least of which was logistical support.
Click to expand...
Resistance to change isn't a positive in my book. With the current state of the budget, they need to be thinking outside the aerobatic box.
 
seand said:
Typical tactic. Cut highly visible things in order to demonstrate pain and hope that the public relents. It's why police, schools, and garbage are cut long before far more discretionary items.
Click to expand...

Yep. This gets a lot more sympathy than limiting the number of training missions pilots have, or doing away with live fire exercises.
 
Geico266 said:
Yep. This gets a lot more sympathy than limiting the number of training missions pilots have, or doing away with live fire exercises.
Click to expand...


Folks, the "Defense budget" isn't only operations and training.

It's a nationwide entire industry funneled tremendous sums to provide R&D, support, maintenance, and development, some of it essential, too much of it pure home district pork.
 
Of course, this is the standard government way of reducing the budget. Put something that nobody wants to cut on the chopping block and suddenly you find money appears.
 
Cut them. In a day of an all volunteer force that has been fighting an overseas contingency for the past ten years and exceeding its recruitment goals, these programs are worthless. Cut all of DODs advertising budget! Also, listen to the Generals and cut unwanted hardware. An example is the C-17.
 
dmccormack said:
Folks, the "Defense budget" isn't only operations and

I training.

It's a nationwide entire industry funneled tremendous sums to provide R&D, support, maintenance, and development, some of it essential, too much of it pure home district pork.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Cutting R&D is not going to get the sympathetic response from the public as cutting the Blue Angles.

Is it time for tthem to go? After thinking about it for a day,.... I say yes. It is time to put those resourses to better uses. A low level pass with a 8g pull up gets the same effect and oohhhs and aaawws from spectators.
 
Last edited:
jmp470 said:
Cut them. In a day of an all volunteer force that has been fighting an overseas contingency for the past ten years and exceeding its recruitment goals, these programs are worthless. Cut all of DODs advertising budget! Also, listen to the Generals and cut unwanted hardware. An example is the C-17.
Click to expand...

yeah, let's get rid of the heavy lifters. yee haw!
 
I would hope that pulling all of the troops out of iraq by the end of 2011 would save us some $$. oh wait, that's a bunch of BS. My friend who is a member of army special forces is deploying january for 6 months in baghdad.
 
dell30rb said:
I would hope that pulling all of the troops out of iraq by the end of 2011 would save us some $$. oh wait, that's a bunch of BS. My friend who is a member of army special forces is deploying january for 6 months in baghdad.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that it would only require 1 e-mail from the oval office to the joint chiefs, to bring every one of our troops home?
 
I'm surprised that no one has suggested fielding a single aerial demonstration team composed of Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force aviators. Could use the F-35 as their showcase platform.
 
Army doesnt fly jets and public would ask why are 3 services "doing the same thing".
 
Tom-D said:
Have you ever considered that it would only require 1 e-mail from the oval office to the joint chiefs, to bring every one of our troops home?
Click to expand...

2words: Political Suicide

Even though most of America doesn't want to pay war taxes to support it.

sacrifice.jpg


do-your-part-against-prices-ww2.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Why don't they cut airforce 1...talk about an obscene waste of taxpayer's money. And I don't mean just for this president. The Blues, Thunderbirds are warmongering propaganda - fun to watch, though. I liked the show the Blue Angles did with the A-4s.

Given our country's current financial crisis, nothing should be off the table.
 
dell30rb said:
I would hope that pulling all of the troops out of iraq by the end of 2011 would save us some $$. oh wait, that's a bunch of BS. My friend who is a member of army special forces is deploying january for 6 months in baghdad.
Click to expand...


If he is SF and told you where he'll be he lied.

Unless he claims to be SF and actually isn't.
 
The justification for the demonstration teams is recruiting.

If we are meeting or exceeding recruiting goals, they certainly can be cut back.

There are no sacred cows in this debt debate.
 
seand said:
Typical tactic. Cut highly visible things in order to demonstrate pain and hope that the public relents. It's why police, schools, and garbage are cut long before far more discretionary items.
Click to expand...


This X elleventybillion. Its a political statement to get people to back off budget cutting, and fiscal responsibility. The Blue Angels, and T-Birds budgets are nothing compared to the larger, discretionary waste.

I agree their are no sacred cows, even in cool aviation things. Still, it is much more effective to cut real budgets instead of making meaningless PR cuts. I have no problem with cutting some waste out of the defense budget if it is meaningfull.
 
dell30rb said:
I would hope that pulling all of the troops out of iraq by the end of 2011 would save us some $$. oh wait, that's a bunch of BS. My friend who is a member of army special forces is deploying january for 6 months in baghdad.
Click to expand...
Until you draw down the number of service members, you will pay them no matter where they are. You might save their combat pay, and their tax free

to put this money saving issue in perspective it like trying to decide which hair to pull out of a gorilla's back.

There is a article floating around the internet that uses a household budge to explain the US budget circuses by removing 8 zeros from each number. that makes it pretty simple to understand.

bottom line in all this money issues the federal government has is pretty smile to understand, Borrowing less each year does not get you out of debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top