Military: Precision flying teams are worth the risk, cost

[niyad]

(I think I am going to be ill)


Military: Precision flying teams are worth the risk, cost

DENVER (AP) — Both of the U.S. military's high-drama, high-dollar flying teams suffered crashes on the same day this week, but supporters say the Air Force Thunderbirds and the Navy Blue Angels are worth the money and the risk because they're vital to recruitment and *******help citizens feel good about their military.*********


(1 of 6) The Air Force Thunderbirds fly overhead as graduating cadets celebrate with the "hat toss" after graduation ceremonies at the 2016 class of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Thursday, June 2, 2016, in Colorado Springs, Colo. A Thunderbirds jet crashed after a flyover of the academy commencement attended by President Barack Obama. The pilot was able to safely eject from the jet. (Ryan Jones/The Gazette via AP) MAGS OUT; MANDATORY CREDIT


"It's our No. 1 recruiting tool," said retired Air Force Col. Pete McCaffrey, a pilot with the Thunderbirds from 1992 to 1995. Most people don't get to see the military up close, but when they see the elite air squadrons perform, "it gives them a sense of pride in their military and their country, and I think now we need that more than ever," McCaffrey said Friday.


A Blue Angels F/A-18 crashed Thursday near Nashville, Tennessee, while taking off for a practice session ahead of a weekend air show. The pilot, Marine Capt. Jeff Kuss, was killed. Also Thursday, a Thunderbirds F-16 crashed outside Colorado Springs, Colorado, but that pilot, Maj. Alex Turner, ejected safely. The Thunderbirds had just performed over the open-air graduation ceremony at the nearby Air Force Academy, where President Barack Obama spoke.


The military hasn't publicly discussed the cause of either crash. Both are under investigation. The Blue Angels and Thunderbirds have had dozens of crashes in their long histories, and a total of at least nine pilots been killed during performances or practices since 1985.


The teams are pricey, too. The Thunderbirds have an annual operating budget of $35 million, said Air Force Staff Sgt. Katie Maricle, a spokeswoman for the Air Combat Command. A Navy spokesman couldn't immediately provide the Blue Angels' budget.

. . . .


https://www.mail.com/news/politics/4390728-military-precision-flying-teams-worth-risk-cost.html#.23140-stage-hero1-5

[PatrickforO]

1. Nice post. I am surprised to be the first reply.

Every time the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds overfly a football game or some event, it sucks up enough tax money to subsidize childcare for hundreds of single mothers that could then join the labor force and contribute to our economy.

I was recently at an event where General Hayden spoke. If you don't know, Hayden was the head of the CIA and NSA back in W's day, and he is an unrepentant neocon hawk. His theme: it is normal for Americans to live in fear, and espionage, kill lists, domestic spying and forever war all PROMOTE democracy and are as 'American as apple pie.'

Seriously. I wanted to puke.

BUT, we've got to remember that this guy and millions of others really believe this shit.

In that sense the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds are only worthy 'targets' because they are most visible. The real things that are destroying us are in the Patriot Act and in the unprecedented war powers Congress has given unconstitutionally to the Executive branch.

[niyad]

3. oh, I remember that asshole. glad I wasn't there.

but, you are quite correct. millions of people believe in that orwellian bs.

[gratuitous]

2. I guess we can't be proud of our country . . .

Unless we have billions of dollars of military hardware flying overhead at graduations and sporting events. Gotta keep those recruiting numbers up!

[niyad]

4. exactly

[malthaussen]

5. I'd like to see the data...

... that backs up the claim that they are "vital to recruiting." There must be some, right?

Funny how we used to make fun of the USSR for their May Day parades. And let's not talk about goosestepping storm troopers.

-- Mal

[niyad]

6. shhhhhh. we are not supposed to notice things like that!

[malthaussen]

7. If they'd just be honest and say "we like them because they're cool..."

... I'd have no problem with that. But they'd rather bullshit about it.

-- Mal

[Iggo]

27. "It's our No. 1 recruiting tool," said retired Air Force Col. Pete McCaffrey.

I agree that there must be some compelling and convincing data to back that up.

I'd like to see it.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. You Said It!

Since only a tiny percentage of people in those two branches ever get near an airplane, and the pilots are all officers, i don't believe that those are all that vital to recruiting.

What i think is most vital is a moderately weak economy and wage suppression. It all kind of works together to get people to sign up.

[Vinca]

8. Giant waste of money.

We don't need stunt pilots when children are going hungry.

[niyad]

9. you are absolutely correct.

[leftyladyfrommo]

10. When the Thunderbirds come to KC

the whole city turns out to see them . People on rooftops
everywhere . Thousands go down to the airshow.

They are so cool. Days before the show they practice right over my house. It's incredible.

[niyad]

11. incredible, until the jet crashes on your house. fortunately, when the blue angel crashed the other

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

day, nobody was killed.

[linuxman]

16. Except the pilot, of course.

I should add, he could have easily ejected at the altitude they were flying, but it was over a residential area. He rode it in and kept it from hitting a house, or worse. He could have pulled the handle, let the aircraft drop, then written a report later. He didnt.

Semper Fidelis, Captain Kuss.

[niyad]

17. sorry, the pilot of the thunderbird did not die. he ejected safely. do not forget that both a blue

angel and a thunderbird both crashed that day.

[LisaM]

29. Same thing in Seattle, and I am in the minority hating them.

They used to zoom around between buildings downtown, but at least they had the sense to stop doing that. One year they didn't come and there was a huge uproar and the Canadian Snowbirds came instead. I can't remember if it used to be the Thunderbirds and now it's the Blue Angels? Either way, I don't care for them and try to avoid seeing them when they practice.

[NobodyHere]

50. There was a large turnout too when they came to the Air Force Base I was stationed at

I remember being voluntold to work at the hot dog vendor.

[tabasco]

12. I 'm so surprised that the military doesn't want to cut a program.

They are usually so scrupulous about saving money!

[niyad]

13. I know, absolutely astonishing, is it not?

[DVRacer]

14. There is another reason for them.

Both units provide flight data back to the fleet. They discover certain flight envelopes that are used in training air combat maneuvers. They rotate back to combat units on a regular basis bringing with them a wealth of knowledge that they share. They push the edge to know exactly where it is so other pilots know where it is. We had a former Blue Angel train our crews before our deployment to Bosnia they learned a lot. Yes they are show pieces like the Golden Knights skydive team the Army has but they are teachers as well.

[linuxman]

15. Their annual budget is 37 million.

That's a black dot in the New York times when viewed against everything else. I could really give a shit. The data they collect on flight science ranging from physiological effects on their bodies to on the aircraft themselves is worth it, imo. Aside from that, they stimulate economies where they perform, inspire young people, and give Americans a sense of pride (yeah, I know, it's a bad thing now, or something...)

I can think of countless other shit to scrap first.

[niyad]

18. the budget for the t-birds alone is 35 mil. the navy won't say what the angels' budget is.

and the rah-rah about what wonderful services those two overpriced play groups provide is more than a little annoying in terms of actual need in this country.

[linuxman]

19. You can deny it, but the fact remains that they do provide a service

You not liking the service provided doesn't diminish it.

R+D, recruiting, and promoting a sense of pride are all worthwhile endeavors.

As far as the budget goes, I figured it out in about two seconds with the help of uncle google.

The navy will and does say. A spokesperson for the Navy saying "I don't have that information available right this second" means just that.

.012 percent of the DOD budget for both services flight demonstration teams seems like a pretty good deal to me.

[uponit7771]

22. That's a claim, not data... people don't believe claims by the military any longer seeing they spend

... like drunk... whatever.

I love both groups but shit... 37 million a per squad and kids are going home with no books and no internet access?!

yeah fuck that

[linuxman]

25. That's one hell of a false dichotomy.

Our government as a whole spends like they are drunk. This is one thing we actually get something out of. The airforce and navy don't keep these programs staffed with fully qualified pilots who could be serving in active fighter squadrons because they think it just looks cool.

That's not how government spending, acquisitions, and programs function. How many poor children got free WiFi the last time we shut down the blue angels? Hell, half the time we institute a tax, the money never makes it to where we said it would go. The federal highway system is a prime example. It's not a problem of a zero sum funds game and not having enough to go around. It's like the old " smokers spend enough on cigs in 10 years to buy a jaguar". None of the ones who quit ever seem to have one.

[4Q2u2]

30. Look at Welfare

I believe only 10% of each dollar ever goes to the individual. It takes the other 90 to get it to them.
That is a big part of a dollar not intended for what everybody thinks that tax is for.

[Bigmack]

33. You "believe"...? I believe the moon is made of green cheese....

... but that's just my opinion.

There is no "Welfare"... it's TANF... and you obviously know nothing about it.

There is a cap for ALL administrative expenses of 15%. At the state level. At the Federal level, admin expenses are under 10%.

So..."10% of each dollar ever goes to the individual" isn't exactly true.
Actually, you got it bass-ackwards.

Read and learn... please...

http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

[4Q2u2]

51. Green Cheese You say

Well I know it is not made of cheese because we landed on it and have never returned, just like the commercial said.
In the Federal Budget the Section pertaining to TANF is called "Public Welfare", it used to be called AFDC.
Admin cost do have caps there are also paragraphs of exclusions to those Admin Costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
• By statute, each State is subject to separate 15-percent caps on the amount of the Federal and MOE funds it may spend on administrative activities. Under the final rules, information technology costs related to monitoring and tracking of TANF requirements are excluded from both these caps.
• "Administrative costs" is defined as costs necessary for the proper administration of the TANF program or separate State programs. It includes the costs for general administration, eligibility determination, and program coordination, including indirect (or overhead) costs.
• The definition does not include the direct costs (including salaries and benefits) associated with providing program services, such as diversion benefits, case management, job development, and post-employment supports, screenings and assessments, and the development of employability plans and work services.
• Expenditures for contract activities are treated as program or administrative costs based on the nature or purpose of the contract.

As the old saying goes. Figures Lie and Liars figure. Not everything is so clear. It was also my intention of stating that those dollars are not reaching the people that need it the most.

[niyad]

23. and the whole DoD budget is a gigantic, sucking hole that steals from the poor, the sick, the hungry

and the rest of us in general.

[linuxman]

26. It doesn't steal a damn thing.

Nor is it even the largest portion of our spending.

We are all taxed to pay for it, and we elect the people who decide how we are taxed, along with how the money is spent.

"Taxes are theft" is probably the oldest, most classic American right wing meme.

[niyad]

32. do try again. the military is the largest part of the budget of this country. but keep on beating

the drum for this bloated, bellicose system. it has gone from slightly amusing to something a great deal less palatable.

[linuxman]

36. You're 100% dead wrong.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

Even if you were to include discretionary spending, It's still beat out by social security and labor spending.

[Bigmack]

37. Here... let me tell you about Social Security....

... it's self-funding. It has a surplus of about $3 Trillion.

It is not "spending".

[linuxman]

40. I admire your ability to stay steadfast in the face of facts.

Bravo.

I gotta say, a program that self-funds without any taxes being used? Man, that infinite money machine should be put to use elsewhere too!

We tax, we spend. SS is an area of that spending.

[Bigmack]

44. Taxes are used... paid in... and benefits paid.

It only costs the government because the government has been using SS funds. The government has to borrow to pay SS back.

SS doesn't cause that... Congress did.

[Logical]

39. SS is paid into. You earn it. WTF is wrong with you? Nt

[linuxman]

41. So are we or are we not spending money from taxes on it?

[Logical]

42. Only because Congress steals money from it for the military. Lol, nice try!

[linuxman]

43. It's all tax money.

There is no "This money" or "That money" until it is allocated.

Congress allocates how tax revenue is spent. We elect the officials who do the allocating.

[Logical]

38. Lol, yes, we need macho demos of the war machine. Nt

[forjusticethunders]

20. Not a hawk by any means but I'd cut a F-35 or two before this.

[KamaAina]

21. SF supervisor seeks to bar Blue Angels from flying over city

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-supervisor-seeks-to-bar-Blue-Angels-from-7962480.php

The fatal crash of a Blue Angels jet during a practice run in Tennessee prompted a San Francisco supervisor to say Friday that the Navy’s aerial stunt team should be barred from flying over the city when it performs here during Fleet Week in October.

Supervisor John Avalos said he plans to introduce a nonbinding resolution by August that would demand that the team of six F/A-18 fighter jets fly only over the bay during its practices and air shows.

“It’s about them crashing and hitting a building — a place where people live,” Avalos said. “It’s about the terror that they cause in people when they strafe neighborhoods. That’s something I hear about all the time when Blue Angels fly overhead.”

He added, “Flying over sailboats that choose to be about in the bay when the Blue Angels are flying — I don’t really have a problem with that.”

[niyad]

24. we have those planes around here way too much, and they always worry me. it was

great good luck that the t-bird pilot didn't crash into people or buildings. glad he was able to eject safely.

[yellowcanine]

28. To be fair, you could probably justify live combat exhibitions using that reasoning.

Alternatively one could say that this is just an excuse for politicians and generals to play games with their very expensive toys on the taxpayer's dime. What am I missing?

[dembotoz]

31. i have no problem with this

we have a volunteer armed services

they need to promote

if too few volunteer that talk about icky stuff like the draft.
my number was 14...don't want my kids to go thru that

[Bigmack]

34. You guys are missing the most salient point on this issue....

THOSE FUCKING THINGS LOOK DAMN COOL!!!!!!

AND THEY GO ZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!

MURIKA...MURIKA... WE'RE #1... WE'RE #1

I rest my case.

[niyad]

45. of course, how very silly and short-sighted of us!!

[L. Coyote]

35. Never mind the pollution, global warming and all.

Some people have no perspective. The military is a greater threat to humanity than an supposed enemy just for the fossil fuel they burn.

[niyad]

46. you make an excellent, and mostly ignored, point.

[melm00se]

48. oh snap

the USA is the only country that does this?

um no.

http://photorecon.net/military-flight-demonstration-teams-of-the-world/

[niyad]

49. nowhere in the article, nor in the posts, did anybody say that this country is the only one

that does this. but, nice try. the same thing applies to whatever other countries are wasting taxpayer dollars on the mic.