Warbird Information Exchange

I would think the general reduction in the number of aircraft in the inventory has had much more of an effect on airshows than BRAC. It might be fair to say that BRAC and the reduction in the inventory are directly tied together, but I don't follow defense news closely enough to make an educated statement on that.

From looking at Air Force almanacs dating back to the 1988 BRAC, we can see the reduction in Air Force inventory. I used 1988, 2005 (final BRAC) and 2019 for comparison:

1988
USAF - 7496 aircraft
ANG - 1730 aircraft
AFRC - 492 aircraft
Total - 9718 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... igures.pdf

2005
USAF - 4273 aircraft
ANG - 1313 aircraft
AFRC - 400 aircraft
Total - 5986 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... s_figs.pdf

2019
USAF - 4015 aircraft
ANG - 1015 aircraft
AFRC - 324 aircraft
Total - 5354 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... issue5.pdf

From this we see roughly a 45 percent reduction in USAF/ANG/AFRC inventory over the last 30 years - coincidentally pretty close to the same amount of time I've been attending airshows. I count about a dozen aircraft types listed in the 1988 inventory that are no longer in service (and there's probably a lot more than that). I could not immediately find a similar source for US Navy or USMC Aviation and didn't look for a source on US Army or Coast Guard inventory, but I would expect to find similar reductions in each service.

It would seem to make sense that this reduction in inventory would result in fewer aircraft being available for airshows. Just as importantly, there are fewer different types of aircraft available to make appearances. We don't have Prowlers, Intruders, S-3s, A-7s, F-117s, etc. anymore because we now have aircraft types that are performing multiple roles. The Super Hornet and its various models fill roles that were once held by a number of different types of aircraft. An airshow in 1988 (or even 2005) could justify spending more on hotel rooms, etc. to bring in the different types of aircraft that fill these roles. I remember going to airshows as a kid in the 90s and seeing Skyhawks, Intruders, Prowlers, F-14s, T-2s, S-3s, C-141s and even a FB-111. Now, is it worth spending to bring in multiple squadrons of Super Hornets that look the same but fill a different mission role? Is that the best use of an airshow budget or military flight hours?

I do think military support for airshows recently in my area has been great. I'm seeing a lot more local squadron involvement than 10 years ago. When bases and units have put on shows, they have coordinated well with other local units to get more military aircraft flying in their airshows. Ten years ago, we'd see one ACC or TAC Demo and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds and that was it (at least around here). I've seen more airpower demos involving multiple units in the last two years than I did in the previous 10.

One thing I've noticed with military airshows in the Midwest is that most of the bases and units that once held annual events are still holding airshows, they're just doing it on a semi-annual basis now (every 2-3 years in most cases). To me, this strikes a nice balance between good local community outreach/recruiting and how these units and bases use their resources. It costs a lot of time and money to put on an airshow. Holding one every couple years keeps the airshow lineup fresh while not overtaxing (for lack of a better word) base and unit resources.

Most of the airshows I know of that have gone under in the Midwest have done so because of the loss of key sponsorships due to economic impact independent of defense, or because of loss of community support. The cost of putting on an airshow is rising. It costs more to book warbirds, hotels, buy fuel, get insurance, etc. than it used to. The loss of a key sponsorship because a particular industry is tanking hurts. Another show that went under didn't reach their projected attendance totals and didn't make back the money they invested in the show. It happens.

I don't buy that airshows and warbirds are being "killed." There are real concerns, but my observation in the Midwest is that there is plenty of support for warbirds and airshows and I think the support will continue to be there provided the economy allows for it. However, there may be areas of the country where that support just isn't there.

My biggest concern on the future of warbirds and airshows is that the price point for ownership and involvement will continue to skyrocket. Warbird ownership is being priced out of the range of the little guy. I don't see nearly as many individuals making the jump from T-6 ownership to a fighter, nor do I see as many individuals with a stable of 3-5 warbirds as I used to. This might just be a local anomaly, but it seems that there are fewer people who fall between owning a single warbird and the über collections financed by billionaires. There are obviously avenues to being involved through museums and organizations, but what happens when the financial backers of these organizations are no longer with us? Are these organizations sustainable without significant financial backing? We're already seeing how this might play out with Paul Allen/Vulcan/FHCAM. Maybe that's a bad example because they didn't tour with their aircraft, but I think it might be a sign of what's could happen elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see what all of this looks like in 2021 or on the other side of the pandemic. I have doubts that there will be shows at military installations next year. I have seen museums and organizations adapting to continue to provide socially-distant events though and I think some of the things that are being tried will continue on the other side of the pandemic. Tri-State Warbird Museum, for example, held a members-only fly day recently. A membership costs $35. What a great way to give a perk to your members and hopefully gain more long-term members that will continue to support the museum. I would consider becoming a member of a museum for 2-3 opportunities to attend a members-only fly day of museum aircraft per year. That would give me an excuse to visit multiple times per year, which I might not otherwise do for a museum a couple hours away. I have also seen several museums doing exclusive, members-only types events with high price points. Hosting a small flying event exclusive to members and with a high price point might be attractive in some areas and could serve as nice little fundraisers for museums moving forward. Do a number of these small events replace an airshow? I could see an argument for holding more of these types of events, which involve a lot less work and financial risk than putting on a major airshow. The tradeoff is that you're catering to people who are already interested in your organization and willing to spend a significant amount of money on that interest as opposed to exposing the organization and warbirds to more of the general public.

I could also see the drive-in format becoming attractive as well. The problem becomes whether you charge by person or vehicle and how expensive it becomes to pay for the best spots for photography. I'm not paying $175 to sit by myself in front of my car even if I can bring my own food and drinks. That price point might work for the family of five that would otherwise spend that much in tickets/parking/food/drinks however. I'd rather personally rather go to the general admission show where I can earn my spot just by showing up early.

I guess I meandered pretty far from the original topic here. Just some further things to think about.