End of the Blues?

[JDK]

Me neither, Ryan. I've never seen the US teams (and not fussed, to be honest) but the best teams I've seen in Europe are all on advanced trainers - Hawks, MB 339s, and Alpha Jets. However the Australian team, The Roulettes are on turboprop PC-9s, and while I rate them as pretty good, it's clear from public reaction that some of the general public just want lots of big jet noise (they used to be on MB 339s). The fact that trainers put the team in front of the crowd longer and repositioning a lot less isn't something the public notice as a positive contrast.

Just my 2d.

[bluehawk15]

The Goshawk is a pretty sharp looking plane at least. Anyone feel up to doing a digital of one in Blues paint? Might be interesting, if not a look into the future.

[Dudley Henriques]

News reports suggest that amid all the 'churn-n-burn' over the budget may have put the funds for the Blue Angels in jeopardy.

Although the media does indeed have a distinct propensity to mislead on issues like this one, make no mistake, there is danger out there for the Blues and Thunderbirds this time around.

I went through this type of thing with BOTH teams back in the old days when I was associated with the Combat Pilots Association. Between the Thunderbird diamond crash (actually it was line abreast) at Indian Springs and the fuel crisis in the US, there was a LOT of talk in Washington about the value of the teams. We engaged forcefully and published a series of articles in the Combat Pilot's Association Magazine JOIN UP stressing the teams missions and their importance to the country as good will ambassadors. We made sure JOIN UP was widely distributed in Washington circles. The guy who I attribute the most credit to in getting the word out was AF Gen Bob Dixon Tac Commander at the time. CPA worked closely with Gen Dixon on the issues involved. The result was a resounding success. The House of Representatives actually made a vote of confidence for the teams on the floor of the house. There was wide backing for the mission and the result with Gen Dixon's help was the TAC decision to transition the Thunderbirds into the Viper.
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.
A great deal depends on the upcoming election and how the chips fall into place after that. The teams are extremely popular with politicians but it remains an uncertainty how they will act under deep and serious pressure on the military funding issue.
It's my sincere hope that the teams will survive what's coming. I've supported their mission for 50 years and in addition to their recruitment mission, consider their international public relations capability as ambassadors of good will for the United States to be unsurpassed by any other available source.
Dudley Henriques

[JDK]

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,

[Jarink1]

Wasn't lower operating costs one of the reasons the USAF chose the F-16 over the F-15 for the Thunderbirds? While I really like the Vipers and Bugs, one or both teams transitioning to trainers would not be the end of the world. They would still be able to put on a heck of a show. I think they would both still be able to fulfill their mission even in 'lesser' planes.

[RickH]

There's plenty of A-4s still in the boneyard ! T-45s,...no way, please NO ! All noise, no go !

[JDK]

I think they would both still be able to fulfill their mission even in 'lesser' planes.

There's plenty of A-4s still in the boneyard ! T-45s,...no way, please NO ! All noise, no go !

What's widely regarded* as one of the best aerobatic teams in the world - the Red Arrows - use the Hawk, and very effectively. While I personally am no great fan (I had other fish to fry rather than watch them for the umpteenth time) they are probably the best I've seen (and I've not seen the US teams, but I have seen the best European and both Antipodian teams as well as the Snowbirds).

I wonder what the comparative cost of running T-45s and Scooters would be?

(And, of course, the big strike against the Scooter is that no credible display team can fly a bomber... )

*When you remove the national bias...

[marine air]

Back in the 1970's . to reduce budget costs, both the Blues and the T-Birds traded in their F-4's for the more economical A-4's and T-38's. Maybe they are looking at downsizing again . In case you haven't noticed we are kind of reliving that era, endless wars, increasing national financial problems, high unemployments, etc.

[Enemy Ace]

I would think that a bigger issue is the fact that the legacy F-18 is slowly being put out to pasture... Unless the Blues are planning on getting F-35's? and as expensive as those airplanes are per Copy can any case be made for using them purely for PR/ Recruiting efforts?
I would say the next mount for the Blues will be the T-45 for sure. They are really gonna hate that they are flying Hawks while the Tbirds will be zooming around in F-16's for a long time to come.

[jtramo]

Bearcats are pretty cheap to own and operate by comparison so maybe they should outsource to the Horsemen.

[PhantomAce08]

I know this probably will not happen, but it would be cool for the Thunderbirds to switch to F-35s and the Blues to switch to Super Hornets!

An interesting aspect with the T-45s. However, I think that would hurt a lot of shows attendance due to the already established fact that crowds like "boom and zoom." If one of the teams are flying a trainer, they no longer become a "draw" for the general public. This means less revenues for shows, which makes it harder for organizations to put on shows in the first place. Just a thought.

[JDK]

If one of the teams are flying a trainer, they no longer become a "draw" for the general public.

The vast majority of the general public can't distinguish between a fighter, or a bomber or a trainer. They can probably tell blimps generally aren't. I presume the Blues and Thunderbirds make a great play of flying fighters currently; however were they to switch (or be switched) to trainers (like all the other foreign teams I can think of) that aspect would suddenly get 'overlooked' in the publicity and commentary, and would have no major effect on bookings (you 'book' the Thunderbirds or the Blues, not a flash fighter unit) or revenue / profile raising.

I'd agree with the rest, though, and particularly with the need for (jet) noise.

Regards,

[Randy Haskin]

I think they would both still be able to fulfill their mission even in 'lesser' planes.

There's plenty of A-4s still in the boneyard ! T-45s,...no way, please NO ! All noise, no go !

What's widely regarded* as one of the best aerobatic teams in the world - the Red Arrows - use the Hawk, and very effectively.

It's important to note that the T-45 has notable differences in weight, power, and performance compared to the Hawk.

The T-45 is well known as being quite a performance turd.

[RickH]

James, there's a big difference in the type of show flown by the US teams versus the large formation European style show.

The US show is more about power speed, and things happen very quickly with the solos and even to some extent the diamonds. Obviously the biggest formations flown by the US teams a six ships when they are in the delta or the line abreast. After that, there's a great deal of high speed ripping around.

As for flying "bombers", I would refer you to the following link;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwi8m4SIejE

[The Inspector]

Then the T-45 would do very well as an air demonstration airplane, it's like a modern T-6, kinda slow and ponderous but it's all tail pipe which is what 99.97% of the boobs go to an airshow for, boom and zoom, if some outfit like the SNOWBIRDS is there they feel cheated because ' cuz it ain't awl noise and thunder', no stupid it's fine art or ballet to counterpoint your CHERRY BOMB car muffler, technique over hitting a steel pipe with a hammer.