Dudley Henriques wrote:
Today it's a VERY dangerous environment for both teams. There is still wide political backing for the team's mission but if things get much worse as concerns funding, politicians will come under extremely high pressure to cut costs and there is no doubt at all in my mind that the mission of the teams will at the very least come under close scrutiny.
Thanks for an interesting insight.
I absolutely agree that the scrutiny is likely - and in fact that's always a necessary process, of course.
But I don't think it at all likely in the current US military climate that either aerobatic team could face a genuine chop - it just sends a fundamental, bad signal, however much one might pile, bias or re-pile the hill of beans for the counters.
My slightly tongue in cheek suggestion (following another better point) that a cost-saving move to cheaper to operate aircraft would, however send a good signal of public-purse thrift within the USA if the USN or USAF made the call. If it were forced on them by their political masters, that would be tougher to handle. That's part of the political element of senior military command, knowing when to hold and when to fold when negotiating with the civil bosses.
[Edit: I'm not overlooking the infrastructure and logistics costs of such a change - but being seen to make savings, as we all know, if often as important as actually saving cash. Hence a 'signal' not a 'saving' in my comment.]
The '
international ambassadors' element Dudley mentions should also not be under-rated. It is huge and has an economic as well as socio-political element for any team seen internationally - such as the Reds, the Thunderbirds recently, and so forth.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
)
