Blue Angels: Should they be grounded?

13 posts

Flag Post

I have just found an article online about how the navy is willing to cut the blue angels by 30 shows from the budget. In my opinion, this shouldn’t happen because about 11 million people watch the shows every year and the money they would save if they did cancel them, would be a meager 20 million.

Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/5/navy-clip-blue-angels-wings-if-sequester-hits/

Florida Today:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130207/NEWS01/302070048/Panhandle-congressman-could-agree-ground-Navy-Blue-Angels

 
Flag Post

The navy really have to ground them.

They think they can fly a plane, yet many crashes.

 
Flag Post

While that amount of money would appear to be a lot to the average citizen,,,,
ya’re dead-on about it being a “drop in the bucket”_,,,,
esp. when compared to the humongous wasteful Federal spending elsewhere,,,
and, even within the military itself…..which is a shamefully HUGE part of the Federal budget.
Not making just one airplane could pay for this program for a looooong time.
This picture
1913322,00.html has 11 planes that cost
“The B-2 Bomber”: costs $2.4 BILLION. The military originally wanted 132 of ’em,,,
but settle for only 21.

The Blue Angels program causes mixed “emotions” for me.
On the one hand, yeah…it’s money that could be spent on much greater needs,,,esp. the “less fortunate” ppl in America.
On the other hand, while the program can viewed as a case of simple bragging by the U.S….it is like YOU said: it is entertainment—usually only a part of an airshow.

I don’t know if the source ya found use that monetary figure sparingly or “inflated”.
It would all depend on the motive.l
By "sparingly, I’m going for showing ONLY the more obvious costs,,,
and the “inflated” part bringing to light all the parietal costs…w/ those likely very inflated.

Here are some monetary numbers what it costs to fly a military plane per hour. I’m not sure of what all “costs” are included in those numbers.

But, here is something that addresses why the cost per hour to keep a big jet plane flying can be so high: MAINTENANCE (and, to a degree…depreciation).

That is a lot of expensive aluminum sitting in those graveyards.

Now, let’s go outside the arena of aircraft.
The cost to operate an aircraft carrier is about a half-million cost for an aircraft carrier FOR ONE DAY….or $160,000,000 per year.
AND, we have 10 of ’em in service

If ya read that last link,,,
did ya catch that: “U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.”?

So, yeah….let’s let those “Angels” fly.
And, let’s let those “flying” “Army Golden Knights” in the air, too.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by cesarcurado:

The navy really have to ground them.

They think they can fly a plane, yet many crashes.

Please expand on this opinion.
Ya do know the private-commercial air service is piloted (MOSTLY) by ex-military?
AND, how many “crashes” are there for that service?
Granted; passenger & parcel carriers don’t fly at the “danger level” as do the military.
But, those fighter-jocks are extreeeeemly well trained and “practice” almost DAILY.
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

If $20 million is nothing to the US government, they should give me $20 million because I could really use the cash.

 
Flag Post

Its funny how accepting the american population is of it a huge military budget.
If those billions of dollars were spent badly or inefficiently by ANY other ministry, there would be huge backlash. But since this is the military, it seems all those BILLIONS of dollars that are being spent on weapons and equipment (most of which are barley used) are just shrugged off. the US gov. instead of 2 billion on bombers, could get infantry or drones to do the same damage, for ten times less $.

BTW, I bet the Us gov. could make a lot of dough by selling all of those graveyard planes to civilian airlines, and the blue angels should not be scraped
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

NOW…..on topic.
I really like what ya’re saying there, sanii.
I’m too busy ATM to fully address it….
I hope to do so later.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

The RAF equivalent display team, the Red Arrows, often find themselves in the discussion about defence cuts.

As with them, I think keeping your Blue Angels doing a proper schedule and not cutting them would be the better option. Display teams do a huge amount of work raising and maintaining the profile of their country’s forces, and probably inspire a good few kids to look seriously at a career in the air force.

Worth it, I think.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by cesarcurado:

The navy really have to ground them.

They think they can fly a plane, yet many crashes.

its their choice to take their shitty careers. they know the consequences .
let them die if they want to. as long as blue angels are profitable, thats all that matters.