No more flyovers....

If you want the money from the F35 program, cut the thing in half and buy twice as many 4.5 gen fighters - then you get airplanes we can actually use and already know how to maintain and operate, save some money and still get some trickle down.
 
Dav8or said:
You know where you guys could probably still do those super sonic fly bys? In the Black Rock desert during Burning Man. I bet most everyone there would love it.
Click to expand...

Beautiful VFR day in Nevada and a bagfull of gas for a Post Maintenance Check Flight that takes all of 15 minutes to complete. What's a Fighter to do? Quick trip over to Tahoe to circle the lake, and then, oh what the hell, let's welcome the folks to Burning Man.

500 foot bubble for the sparse population, .98 in '98, with an aggressive return to altitude (that's right, the Blue Angels copied it, it was that cool).

I have heard that opinions on the ground were split as to whether it was welcome or not.

And for those in the 'wasteful spending' camp, there comes a time when a commitment is complete on paper, and a list of pros and cons is made to determine whether the taxpayers will continue to benefit from their sizable investment. The memory of a day like that one in '98 goes solidly in the pro column for a guy like me.
 
EvilEagle said:
If you want the money from the F35 program, cut the thing in half and buy twice as many 4.5 gen fighters - then you get airplanes we can actually use and already know how to maintain and operate, save some money and still get some trickle down.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the stock answer to that is 'stealth survivability'. However that raises the question, "Then why if the F35 is more expensive than the F-22, why not let the AF get more 22s instead?" I thought the whole reason the F-35 got sold and 22 cut short because the F-35 was only supposed to be 1/3-1/2 the price.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I'm guessing the stock answer to that is 'stealth survivability'. However that raises the question, "Then why if the F35 is more expensive than the F-22, why not let the AF get more 22s instead?" I thought the whole reason the F-35 got sold and 22 cut short because the F-35 was only supposed to be 1/3-1/2 the price.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yup. That was one big reason. "Lockheed promises that it will better, on time, working correctly AND cheaper. They've never sold us a bill of good before so let's put all our eggs in this basket." (Lockheed snickers with a sly smile and counts the stacks of money it's about to add onto the cost...)

The other big reason is political - we will sell the 35 to other people but not the 22. That's the other big reason for the 35 buy/numbers.

Anyone else notice that neither of the two main reasons has anything to do with actual tactical capability? Hmmm...
 
Ok.

I have a $2000/month budget. I have to cut $40. Do I quit buying milk or quit going to the movies? Is it really going to hurt me to not see a movie?

BTW, I'm still borrowing $800/month and paying minimums on my credit cards, but that isn't really the question.
 
Of course, the military right now is pretty across the board overstrength especially at the grunt ranks.

The bright side of the sequester for Margy is that what has not been cancelled is local static displays. Margy's still hoping she can get some local military stuff for the annual become a pilot day event at Udvar-Hazy.
 
bflynn said:
Ok.

I have a $2000/month budget. I have to cut $40. Do I quit buying milk or quit going to the movies? Is it really going to hurt me to not see a movie?

BTW, I'm still borrowing $800/month and paying minimums on my credit cards, but that isn't really the question.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem...The military wants to cut the movies...Congress says NO...it is more important to support the motion picture industry than to worry about proper nutrition.
 
EvilEagle said:
If you want the money from the F35 program, cut the thing in half and buy twice as many 4.5 gen fighters - then you get airplanes we can actually use and already know how to maintain and operate, save some money and still get some trickle down.
Click to expand...

Would you just stop making sense! Haven't you been in long enough to know that logic is not generally applied to anything in the acquisition world?
 
EvilEagle said:
Yup. That was one big reason. "Lockheed promises that it will better, on time, working correctly AND cheaper. They've never sold us a bill of good before so let's put all our eggs in this basket." (Lockheed snickers with a sly smile and counts the stacks of money it's about to add onto the cost...)

The other big reason is political - we will sell the 35 to other people but not the 22. That's the other big reason for the 35 buy/numbers.

Anyone else notice that neither of the two main reasons has anything to do with actual tactical capability? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Well, that's fine, let Lockheed build and sell the damned thing to other people, we'll buy more 22s. Then let Lockheed pay back the R&D money the taxpayer gave them.
 
catmandu said:
Beautiful VFR day in Nevada and a bagfull of gas for a Post Maintenance Check Flight that takes all of 15 minutes to complete. What's a Fighter to do? Quick trip over to Tahoe to circle the lake, and then, oh what the hell, let's welcome the folks to Burning Man.

500 foot bubble for the sparse population, .98 in '98, with an aggressive return to altitude (that's right, the Blue Angels copied it, it was that cool).

I have heard that opinions on the ground were split as to whether it was welcome or not.

And for those in the 'wasteful spending' camp, there comes a time when a commitment is complete on paper, and a list of pros and cons is made to determine whether the taxpayers will continue to benefit from their sizable investment. The memory of a day like that one in '98 goes solidly in the pro column for a guy like me.
Click to expand...

I think if you let them know you are coming and from what directions and time, everyone there would love it more. Just sayin' ;)

Otherwise, good job!:D
 
ebykowsky said:
What!?!?!?!? Is this a joke? They're awesome recruitment for the military; who doesn't want to--at least a little bit--fly one of those when the fly over just as the National Anthem ends and the fireworks go off? One of my favorite moments in football was when they flew over the Gamecocks stadium right at twilight with full afterburner... simply awesome.
They're no more expensive than training flights :(
Click to expand...


The Vans Airforce Formation Flyers is gonna replace them. :rofl: :eek: :rofl:
 
While I hate to see the gvt cut this to prove an idiotic point, I think it can be an opening for airshow teams. This in a small way would be great showcase for these teams.

This is so sad of this president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top