PDA

View Full Version : Blue Angels, Thunderbirds: take note



Robert F. Dorr
02-13-2013, 03:07 PM
Defense News, February 12:

GENEVA — Many Swiss were outraged Wednesday after hearing that the country’s beloved aerobatic red planes with their characteristic white crosses, the Patrouille Suisse, will be cut from the Swiss air force by 2016.

“We will no longer have planes simply for folklore,” President Ueli Maurer told a parliamentary security policy commission meeting on Tuesday, according to the Basler Zeitung daily. The commission had been discussing Switzerland’s pending purchase of 22 JAS39 Gripen fighter jets from Sweden when a member reportedly asked about the future of the Patrouille Suisse, which have been a fixture in Swiss skies since1964.

The Swiss president, who is also the country’s defense minister and a member of the populist right Swiss People’s Party, told the gathering that as of 2016, the cherished aerobatic team would cease to exist. The revelation sparked outrage in Switzerland, with politicians leading the way.

“Maurer is underestimating the symbolic importance of the Patrouille Suisse,” Martin Landolt, head of the Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland, told the 20Minuten.ch website. The head of the Christian Democratic Party, Christoph Darbellay, agreed and described the decision as “a provocation.”

A former pilot with the aerobatic team, also quoted by 20Minuten.ch, denounced the move, stressing that the Patrouille Suisse had never had an accident since its creation in 1964.

“The Patrouille is the best business card Switzerland has,” pilot John Huessy said, insisting, “It is unacceptable to say that what they do is about folklore.”

sandsjames
02-13-2013, 03:10 PM
Great article. Not for following European countries on a lot of stuff, but when it shows common sense I feel we should take a second look.

WARCRIMINAL
02-13-2013, 03:59 PM
Where do you think the idea for Obama-care derived? Western Europe's socialized medical system! WRT The Blue's and Thunder-Chickens... axe them, I say. These costs of these programs surely outweighs the benefits:

1) Recruiting (People that want to fly in the Navy or Marine Corps usually want to do so long before the ever see the Blues--if they ever see tham at all. Recruiting is influenced little by these dog and pony shows).

2) A visual return to the taxpayers (I'd rather see less taxes taken out of my pay or just watch Top Gun as an annual ritual--the show never changes except for the faces).

3) Sure! It generates revenue for the cities they visit but what about the taxpayers that don't live in the cities of their regulalry scheduled visits? Top that off with the local airport wanting to charge miscellaneous fees to see your tax dollars in action.

I will now step down from my soap box...

Robert F. Dorr
02-13-2013, 07:58 PM
Where do you think the idea for Obama-care derived? Western Europe's socialized medical system! WRT The Blue's and Thunder-Chickens... axe them, I say. These costs of these programs surely outweighs the benefits:

1) Recruiting (People that want to fly in the Navy or Marine Corps usually want to do so long before the ever see the Blues--if they ever see tham at all. Recruiting is influenced little by these dog and pony shows).

2) A visual return to the taxpayers (I'd rather see less taxes taken out of my pay or just watch Top Gun as an annual ritual--the show never changes except for the faces).

3) Sure! It generates revenue for the cities they visit but what about the taxpayers that don't live in the cities of their regulalry scheduled visits? Top that off with the local airport wanting to charge miscellaneous fees to see your tax dollars in action.

I will now step down from my soap box...

You'd better. You made some good points but your lead-in needs work.

WARCRIMINAL
02-13-2013, 09:05 PM
My apologies if my lead-in offended anyone... I don't normally make it a habbit to write formally here (Sincerely!). I never take posts or replies here as an offense so, i hope nobody did mine! But, the lead in on your reply doesn't abide by your own suggestion, Bob!

forcedj
02-13-2013, 09:34 PM
I would say that the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, Golden Knights, etc...also serve as a public relations tool. It’s kind of giving something back to the taxpayers. Although if you ask the average taxpayer “higher taxes or cut military stunt teams?” most would probably say cut the stunt teams. So I say shelve them at least for the time being. But, here’s another idea. Maybe just one team could be funded. Why not have just one joint-service aerobatic display team? Combine the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, and if there any Army jet pilots include them.

Dan

SeaLawyer
02-13-2013, 10:15 PM
I would say that the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, Golden Knights, etc...also serve as a public relations tool. It’s kind of giving something back to the taxpayers. Although if you ask the average taxpayer “higher taxes or cut military stunt teams?” most would probably say cut the stunt teams. So I say shelve them at least for the time being. But, here’s another idea. Maybe just one team could be funded. Why not have just one joint-service aerobatic display team? Combine the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, and if there any Army jet pilots include them.

Dan

Now there's an original and potential solution! Not only would it combine funding but demonstrate joint-service unity. These display teams serve primarily as a non-deploying billet anyway so, the only arguments that might come from such a proposal are the members that want it for just that.

Well done, Dan!

Robert F. Dorr
02-14-2013, 12:16 AM
Now there's an original and potential solution! Not only would it combine funding but demonstrate joint-service unity. These display teams serve primarily as a non-deploying billet anyway so, the only arguments that might come from such a proposal are the members that want it for just that.

Well done, Dan!

I'm not such a big fan of jointness.

WARCRIMINAL
02-14-2013, 02:37 AM
You'd better. You made some good points but your lead-in needs work.

And then you reply with: "I'm not such a big fan of jointness." ???

Didn't you just try and slam me for "lead-ins," Robert? And I quote from YOUR thread: "You'd better. You made some good points but your lead-in needs work."

Don't impose your etiquette in an informal intellectual forum if you don't intend to do so yourself. While I admire your military background, I don't believe you should use it as a source of leverage in an opinionated forum.

BURAWSKI
02-14-2013, 02:59 AM
Relax Francis, it's just a posting. Opinions are like..........

WARCRIMINAL
02-14-2013, 10:43 AM
It's all good! No feelings hurt... A true pot vs. kettle case along with the glass house theory. Robert's a good man... I just don't like sand being thrown at me on the playground. It get's in my eyes and makes me cry.

Robert F. Dorr
02-16-2013, 02:17 AM
It's all good! No feelings hurt... A true pot vs. kettle case along with the glass house theory. Robert's a good man... I just don't like sand being thrown at me on the playground. It get's in my eyes and makes me cry.

When I entered this Forum they told me to put on a flak helmet. Didn't you get one?

Banned
02-17-2013, 04:34 AM
I would say that the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, Golden Knights, etc...also serve as a public relations tool. It’s kind of giving something back to the taxpayers. Although if you ask the average taxpayer “higher taxes or cut military stunt teams?” most would probably say cut the stunt teams. So I say shelve them at least for the time being. But, here’s another idea. Maybe just one team could be funded. Why not have just one joint-service aerobatic display team? Combine the Blue Angles, Thunderbirds, and if there any Army jet pilots include them.

Dan


Now there's an original and potential solution! Not only would it combine funding but demonstrate joint-service unity. These display teams serve primarily as a non-deploying billet anyway so, the only arguments that might come from such a proposal are the members that want it for just that.

Well done, Dan!

Great idea... but how would this save money? All the teams are booked months or even years in advance... even if we consolidated into one team, you'd still have to have the same number of pilots and aircraft to cover all the demand for them.

Robert F. Dorr
02-17-2013, 11:07 AM
Great idea... but how would this save money? All the teams are booked months or even years in advance... even if we consolidated into one team, you'd still have to have the same number of pilots and aircraft to cover all the demand for them.

There are lots of other reasons why this isn't actually a great idea.

forcedj
02-18-2013, 04:17 PM
Great idea... but how would this save money? All the teams are booked months or even years in advance... even if we consolidated into one team, you'd still have to have the same number of pilots and aircraft to cover all the demand for them.


It wouldn’t “save” money, but it would mean spending less. It’s just a matter of if just one team can be supported. If just ‘one team’ can be…a ‘joint’ team is a good way to go. And, with only one team obviously it wouldn’t be able to cover all the dates on the current schedule. Appearances are one obstacle that would have to be worked out. But it could be done. That is IF they want to still have an aerobatic team.

Dan

RobotChicken
03-07-2013, 07:09 AM
:clock By the time all services get the F-35...they couldn't afford the flight time,training,etc.....and losing a $half billion plane or two would cost somebody a star! :target

oboatsailor
06-22-2013, 06:38 AM
You have to understand that we need to get rid of the Blue Angels in order to fly drones to count rabbits and sheep. And if Princess Nancy becomes Speaker of the House again she will want her three Air Force jet's back. And the Commander and Chief needs Planes to fly to campaign speeches and vacation. The Blue Angels like Fleet Week bring the Navy to the people and this should not be allowed. The money saved can be put into solar companies that don't work and other important pork political pay offs; and no maintenance upkeep on bases and ships will also help because it will destroy the Fleets much quicker than an enemy cannon thus not only saving us money, but our enemies.

RobotChicken
06-22-2013, 07:25 AM
"Now that sounds like someone I know!"

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 03:45 PM
I wonder how much we saved this year?

http://afthunderbirds.com/site/upcoming-shows/

http://blueangels.navy.mil/show/

It the savings were significant just by cancelling appearances, think of how much $$ we could save by cancelling the whole she-bang?!?!?

Desk Pilot
07-31-2013, 04:10 PM
Let's just switch to flying drones for the shows. One drone pilot can control up to four planes. You can even have the cameras active so you can spy while performing getting more bang for your bucks. :silly:

Chief Bosun
08-01-2013, 01:13 PM
This thread is an old one.

Even though these special teams are good public relations and all, I find it hard to see how we can support operating them when you have civilian employees on furlough, flight time for pilots in other units being curtailed, operating secheduled being adjusted to pinch pennies, and so on.

Joint service is all well and good. However, even with all the effort over the past 30+ years to change joint service from something you assigned someone to that you had no use for to an assignment that is career enhancing, each service has it's little rice bowl that they will defend to the death even when it is in their best interest to share, and it is doubtful that will change in our lifetimes. In this case, each service is gonna want to engage in the usual chest beating through the use of these teams to show how big and bad they are.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
08-01-2013, 01:42 PM
This thread is an old one.

Even though these special teams are good public relations and all, I find it hard to see how we can support operating them when you have civilian employees on furlough, flight time for pilots in other units being curtailed, operating secheduled being adjusted to pinch pennies, and so on.

Joint service is all well and good. However, even with all the effort over the past 30+ years to change joint service from something you assigned someone to that you had no use for to an assignment that is career enhancing, each service has it's little rice bowl that they will defend to the death even when it is in their best interest to share, and it is doubtful that will change in our lifetimes. In this case, each service is gonna want to engage in the usual chest beating through the use of these teams to show how big and bad they are.

The teams are a recruiting tool, that's it. Also, at least with the Thunderbirds, they are only allowed to fly to keep the pilots current in the aircraft. Just saw two flying around yesterday by themselves. No airshows, no airshow practice, just a couple airplanes at a time. The other squadrons are allowed to fly again as well.

Chief Bosun
08-01-2013, 05:56 PM
The teams are a recruiting tool, that's it. Also, at least with the Thunderbirds, they are only allowed to fly to keep the pilots current in the aircraft. Just saw two flying around yesterday by themselves. No airshows, no airshow practice, just a couple airplanes at a time. The other squadrons are allowed to fly again as well.

Airman -

I would hope the Thunderbirds would fly at their home field to get the minimum flight hours in to maintain proficiency in their aircraft.

Yes, I realise that squadrons are also getting in flight hours. But then, that is expected in order to ensure the pilots maintain their quals. But then, there also is a difference between getting in what you need to maintain your quals, and getting in hours simply to achieve a certain milestone by a certain time because you want to, not because you need to.