Defense Cuts = No Air Shows

[Stonewall]

Lackland didn't have their air show in December, and Langley, Semour Johnson, and Maxwell that I know of, have all cancelled theirs for 2013.

My favorite, the Joint Services Open House at Andrews AFB has changed to every other year now.

I love air shows, and I was looking forward to attending A LOT of them with my kids.  It'll be a lot harder now

[Woodsy]

MacDill Air Fest is a major mission for Florida Wing every year.  We support it with 100+ members.  As of the last email I got on it, they are still proceeding with planning it, with the understanding that it will be canceled if sequesterwhateveritis happens.

[Spaceman3750]

My understanding was that airshows were a way to burn excess flight hours at the end of the year... I don't think Scott has had one in several, but I could be wrong.

[Tim Medeiros]

Just got an email from AZWG saying the Luke AFB one got cancelled this year.

[jimmydeanno]

Barksdale's is cancelled, too.

I like airshows as much as the next guy, but having the country go bankrupt or watching the Red Bull performance team...

Maybe they'll start looking at things like DoD employing more band members than the State Department employs foreign service agents, why GSA pricing is considerably higher than normal pricing, and why contracts always seem to go to the highest priced contractor or cost considerably more than the same project in the civilian marketplace.

[SarDragon]

Heard today that just about all of the airshow schedules past May have been cancelled.

[Paul_AK]

Does anyone happen to know if they will still have open houses, though? Or is it all portions and not just flying hours that have been axed?

[LegacyAirman]

Does anyone happen to know if they will still have open houses, though? Or is it all portions and not just flying hours that have been axed?

Today, at the base where I work, a Wing Commander's briefing on sequestration included open houses with airshows as discontinued.

[Patterson]

I would rather see every Air Force Community Outreach line item (Bands, AirShows, Open Houses etc.) cut instead of CAP cut!!

No tears here if Military jet teams don't ever fly again!!  It's a huge waste of our tax money and it does not directly impact recruitment, especially now since the services will be decreasing recruitment goal numbers in the years ahead.

[abdsp51]

I would rather see every Air Force Community Outreach line item (Bands, AirShows, Open Houses etc.) cut instead of CAP cut!!

No tears here if Military jet teams don't ever fly again!!  It's a huge waste of our tax money and it does not directly impact recruitment, especially now since the services will be decreasing recruitment goal numbers in the years ahead.

Bitter much?  You obviously don't get it do you.  The Air Forces budget getting cut means CAPs budget is going to get cut.  The T-birds actually do directly impact recruiting and numbers are dropping because the services are again looking for a higher caliber of people.  And there are many cuts across the AF that are hitting home to alot of people daily.  They just canned TA earlier this week for the rest of the fiscal year, and are going to be starting furloughs next month.  I would rather have my airmen have the money for school than us get a [darn] new airplane.  Want to know a bigger waste of your tax money?  The elected representation  being able to whisk away in a USAF aircraft at their whim.   

[Майор Хаткевич]

I would rather have my airmen have the money for school than us get a [darn] new airplane. 

And if we had no planes, how many multiples of TA cash worth would the AF be spending on SAR?

[abdsp51]

I would rather have my airmen have the money for school than us get a [darn] new airplane. 

And if we had no planes, how many multiples of TA cash worth would the AF be spending on SAR?

 
No more than what they are spending now.  Also most states do SAR via a state office or the county Sheriff.  Without the people the planes aren't worth squat. 

[jimmydeanno]

Re: TA program

How many educations is a service member entitled to?  GIBill and TA?  So, the free education benefits from the GIBill aren't good enough that we need a free tuition program too?  Sure, the GIBill doesn't pay as much if you're still on AD, but life is full of choices, no?

[SarDragon]

Re: TA program

How many educations is a service member entitled to?  GIBill and TA?  So, the free education benefits from the GIBill aren't good enough that we need a free tuition program too?  Sure, the GIBill doesn't pay as much if you're still on AD, but life is full of choices, no?

One education, two different pockets of money.

TA is intended for use while on AD, and it pays a percentage of the cost of a course. There used to be no limit on the amount of benefits that could be used. I'm not sure of today's rules

While GI Bill may, under specific circumstances, be used while on AD, it it intended for use after discharge, or retirement. If taking courses on a less than half-time basis, it pays tuition. For a course load half-time or greater, a monthly stipend is paid. There is a limit to the benefit.

Wn\hen I retired, there was enough available to complete a bachelors degree, and most of a masters degree, depending on how expensive the school is. I attended a private university, which was more expensive. A state school would have been cheaper.

All this has been in place for what seems like forever. I got my first TA in 1974.

[abdsp51]

Re: TA program

How many educations is a service member entitled to?  GIBill and TA?  So, the free education benefits from the GIBill aren't good enough that we need a free tuition program too?  Sure, the GIBill doesn't pay as much if you're still on AD, but life is full of choices, no?

One education, two different pockets of money.

TA is intended for use while on AD, and it pays a percentage of the cost of a course. There used to be no limit on the amount of benefits that could be used. I'm not sure of today's rules

While GI Bill may, under specific circumstances, be used while on AD, it it intended for use after discharge, or retirement. If taking courses on a less than half-time basis, it pays tuition. For a course load half-time or greater, a monthly stipend is paid. There is a limit to the benefit.

Wn\hen I retired, there was enough available to complete a bachelors degree, and most of a masters degree, depending on how expensive the school is. I attended a private university, which was more expensive. A state school would have been cheaper.

All this has been in place for what seems like forever. I got my first TA in 1974.

Exactly and I paid into the GI Bill plain and simple.  TA is one of the things that draws people to enlist and serve.  Also with the cuts travel for career enhancing schools are going to be limited as well as flight hours outside of theater.  So why should we have funds for equipment when we have people who's careers will potentially stagnate and their self improvement because of these cuts.  Which brings back that with the AF's budget being cut CAP's budget will be too.  It's the nature of the beast.   

[BHartman007]

Wings Over Houston has said that they will go on with or without military involvement. Sure won't be the same, though.

[Eclipse]

Frankly I've wondered for years when the airshows were going to come to an end, whether because of funding, safety, or tree huggers.
I know I'm way in the minority on this, at least here, but I have no particular love for these whatsoever.  I understand that the ones that focus
on GA, like Airventure, are economic drivers, both for the industry and the local area, so be it, but beyond that, I don't see the point of
the huge cost and risk.

Don't get me wrong, one reason I bought my home where it is was because it's on a final approach for the World's Busiest Airport (screw you Harstfield!) - I enjoy watching airplanes, fly a fair piece, and still get excited when something mil-spec washes by (POTUS' Chinooks flew over the house Thursday, and we saw Marine 1 with at least 3 in tow landing across from us during our SAV yesterday), I just don't buy into the ROI, and when you have to cut discretionary spending, that's the kind of places to look.

[lordmonar]

There are a lot of intagibles in the ROI of military air shows.

I agree....in a time where we are cutting military benifits (tuition assistance, etc) I agree that airshows should stop.

But we should still keep it as a budget item.

[abdsp51]

There are a lot of intagibles in the ROI of military air shows.

I agree....in a time where we are cutting military benifits (tuition assistance, etc) I agree that airshows should stop.

But we should still keep it as a budget item.

I agree.  As much as I like seeing them and working them was a blast, if we are cutting budget items that the troops want there needs to be other concessions as well.  Airshows cost money and JP8 is not cheap by any means. 

[Patterson]

AirShows were relevant prior to and leading into the 1950's, a period you might consider the "dawn and expansion of aviation". Since the mid twentieth century, AirShows have become less of an introduction and showcase of American Aerospace ingenuity and more of a money maker for corporations!

Besides that, the military must decide now if it wants to spend money on the warfighter or entertainment!  We are still a nation largely at war!!  I might sound cold or heartless, but I know I decided to serve my country because of a sense of obligation and duty (thanks to time as a CAP Cadet most likely) and not because I was either dazzled by shiny planes or tanks, or bribed by lump sums of cold hard cash!
I knew service in the military would be a hardship, both personally and financially.  I understood I would get far less "take-home pay" than my friends in the civilian sector. 

Now our nation is at the proverbial crossroads in deciding what parts of our Armed Forces gets funded.  It might sound harsh, but I want my tax dollars to go toward bullets and bombs, not to pay the salary of a musician in the Army or Air Force Band!  Do we need bands and AirShows when funding those items means we must cut the number of tanks or planes that need purchased this year?

It is actually very simple!  All a person has to do is remove themself from making decisions based on personal likes or interests, and make decisions based on necessities and whole picture needs.

There are some that are quick to jump on me and others that base our decisions on facts instead of personal feelings.  Those that believe an AirShow adds to our Warfighting capability is blinded by personal belief and can not see the true facts of the matter! 

To simplify it further, the reason our national economic situation is dire is directly related to the continuance of federal and state programs that cost more than the added value benefit it was supposed to deliver!

Economics is the game, and the majority of Americans have no clue how to play.  So before you object to my reasoning, I ask that you first take a look at your own personal financial situation.  If you are in debt, yet have eaten out anytime during the past 30 days, you are a primary reaon why our nation sucks on the economic stage!!

If you truly object and must counter my arguments, please use facts and not personal feelings.  The "AirShows are needed to keep recruitment numbers up" argument is no longer valid (has not been for the past 30 years). You can find the DoD reports related to outreach programs and recruitment numbers by way of a Google search!  The Miltary itself understands outreach programs like AirShows are not a huge multiplier of enlistment numbers, but because these programs are so ingrained and have so many service members supporting them, cutting them out alltogether would be a sign of waste and would cause further scrutiny into all military programs by the Fed.

[Eclipse]

You could also make the strong case that the last fighter pilot has already been born, and a more appropriate demonstration would be
a showcase of drones - that's where most of the innovation and investment is going.

I know it harshes a pilot's mellow to hear that, but that's the reality.

[abdsp51]

Now our nation is at the proverbial crossroads in deciding what parts of our Armed Forces gets funded.  It might sound harsh, but I want my tax dollars to go toward bullets and bombs, not to pay the salary of a musician in the Army or Air Force Band!  Do we need bands and Air Shows when funding those items means we must cut the number of tanks or planes that need purchased this year?

There is a far greater waste of tax payer dollars than a mil band.  And btw tanks have not been used since we withdrew from Iraq.  You are missing a key and critical point of some of this.  MORALE!!!!!

The Army and AF band are there for morale purposes and since you claim to serve you know **** well how music especially live music can and many times does improve morale.   The cost of not holding and participating in air shows will help in the long run but ultimately its the elected leadership on the hill who need to wake up and axe wasteful programs and take a cut in their own salaries and perks to help reduce the debt.  I bet you agree with them axing TA for service members for the rest of fiscal year too..

And I will still point out one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars is when senators hop on AF aircraft to go anywhere within CONUS or OCONUS at their whim. 

[jimmydeanno]

Re: TA program

How many educations is a service member entitled to?  GIBill and TA?  So, the free education benefits from the GIBill aren't good enough that we need a free tuition program too?  Sure, the GIBill doesn't pay as much if you're still on AD, but life is full of choices, no?

One education, two different pockets of money.

TA is intended for use while on AD, and it pays a percentage of the cost of a course. There used to be no limit on the amount of benefits that could be used. I'm not sure of today's rules

While GI Bill may, under specific circumstances, be used while on AD, it it intended for use after discharge, or retirement. If taking courses on a less than half-time basis, it pays tuition. For a course load half-time or greater, a monthly stipend is paid. There is a limit to the benefit.

Wn\hen I retired, there was enough available to complete a bachelors degree, and most of a masters degree, depending on how expensive the school is. I attended a private university, which was more expensive. A state school would have been cheaper.

All this has been in place for what seems like forever. I got my first TA in 1974.

Exactly and I paid into the GI Bill plain and simple.  TA is one of the things that draws people to enlist and serve.  Also with the cuts travel for career enhancing schools are going to be limited as well as flight hours outside of theater.  So why should we have funds for equipment when we have people who's careers will potentially stagnate and their self improvement because of these cuts.  Which brings back that with the AF's budget being cut CAP's budget will be too.  It's the nature of the beast.

Even if you're in the old GIBill and paid in (your whole whopping $1000), you still get about a 4500X return ob that investment.  So, it's still the taxpayer paying for your education.  Even though it's original intent isn't to be used on active duty, and is designed to help with reacclimation to "civilian life", it can and is used by people on AD.  Basically it's a free bachelors degree.

TA, covers 100% of the course expense for military members on AD (undergrad).  Many Guard units have "tuition waiver" with their respective state schools.  Even though the post-undergrad TA gets capped each semester, it's another free degree.  So, someone who is on AD for a while could easily get a free Masters degree without touching their GIBill. 

So, how many degrees am I expected to pay for for one individual?  On the outside, people are expected to pay their own education expenses, and if their career stagnates that is their own problem. 

I have no problem with having education benefits for military folks, but concurrent, redundant education benefits seem like a big waste.

[abdsp51]

So, how many degrees am I expected to pay for for one individual?  On the outside, people are expected to pay their own education expenses, and if their career stagnates that is their own problem. 

I have no problem with having education benefits for military folks, but concurrent, redundant education benefits seem like a big waste.

So you'd rather have a nice shiny new plane, than have someone trained to fix it regardless of who paid for the education?  And more of your tax dollars go to support illegals healthcare and welfare and unemployment than a service members degree.

[SarDragon]

[sarcasm]

You need a college degree to fly a plane in the military. you only need a high school diploma to fix it.

[/sarcasm]

Degrees are beneficial for promotion into the higher enlisted ranks, but I don't know of a single enlisted occupation where a degree is essential to doing the job. Tech schools provide the necessary knowledge and training.

[abdsp51]

[sarcasm]

You need a college degree to fly a plane in the military. you only need a high school diploma to fix it.

[/sarcasm]

Degrees are beneficial for promotion into the higher enlisted ranks, but I don't know of a single enlisted occupation where a degree is essential to doing the job. Tech schools provide the necessary knowledge and training.

Degrees are marketable outside of the military as well, though some are overrated.  I would rather have an airman be able to complete their degree than see a new piece of hardware sitting on the ramp.  Without the people with the education the equipment is no good.   And having that degree puts the junior enlisted in the running for many good things.  But with the cuts their training is going to be halted and many will face career stagnation. 

[SarDragon]

I'm kinda stirring the pot here with my commentary.

I am not a fan of cutting the TA program. Given current standards, it is an impediment to promotion, especially to E-7 and above.

But, you still haven't explained the usefulness of a degree to an enlisted person directly related to his job. Mine is in electronics, and my tech school knowledge was more useful to my degree, than vice versa.

[abdsp51]

I'm kinda stirring the pot here with my commentary.

I am not a fan of cutting the TA program. Given current standards, it is an impediment to promotion, especially to E-7 and above.

But, you still haven't explained the usefulness of a degree to an enlisted person directly related to his job. Mine is in electronics, and my tech school knowledge was more useful to my degree, than vice versa.

Usefulness being an individual is seeking self improvement and betterment rather than relying on a basic foundation with really is all a tech school is.  Sticking through and finishing something.  And then some schools are so outdated graduates are playing catch up.  And no one is saying you have to have a degree in that field.  Education can be a key to a persons marketability rather than a nice shiny Cessna sitting on a ramp. 

[Eclipse]

I highly value being "educated",  but not a degree, or the college / university system, necessarily.  I think the apprentice / mentor / hands-on theater of training is more effective and fosters a much more realistic worldview.

I think increasingly college degrees are locking people into an old-world economy mindset, (one which is disappearing quickly) and not allowing for the flexibility to change as is clearly needed these days, and further to this, puts young people on a career track that they ultimately don't even want to be on, or is essentially useless in the current economy. 

I know for myself, all I heard when I was younger was that a degree and certifications were the ticket to my career field.  What I have experienced is that they were the ticket to jobs I wouldn't even consider taking, or are required in companies where I wouldn't want to work as they value wallpaper over skills and experience. 

I know plenty of professionals who had great experience and value from college, and I respect the choice, but I know plenty
more who bypassed or never finished and still find themselves gainfully employed in excellent situations not related to food service or
the custodial arts.  I also know more then a few whose hourly bill rate far exceeds the rate of the degreed professionals that happily hire them.  It's also ironic to note that some of the most successful entrepreneurs and drivers of the "new" economy were products
of collegiate environments, but never completed a degree themselves.  Most have indicated that knowledge and information
were what they were starving for, but the university system too narrowly defined to provide what they hungered for.

Getting back to the TA cuts, it would be interesting to know what the utilization rate is among the MOS' that likely need it the most.
I've seen it mentioned that the frontline personnel of the various services, the men and women who probably need it the most, aren't generally able to take advantage of it because their circumstances don't allow for attending school, while the professional disciplines
use it a lot more because their HQ assignments allow for more dependable schedules.

Either way, giving an Airman money for training of any kind has more direct value then a C-130 doing a low pass over a crowd.

[Patterson]

Perhaps Tuition Assistance during Active Duty should be cut.  That particular program is purely an incentive to recruit more warm bodies.  If it is not apparent, the next few years will see our Active, Reserve and Guard numbers cut big time.  It will become a "we select only the best from our applicant pool" military.  Filling ever growing uniforms and increasing personnel quotas are long over, we are entering a humongous drawdown.

If all goes as expected, BRACC next year will be devastating!  The days of free AirShows at taxpayer expense are long gone.

To the person who said morale is the reason for Military Bands....your kidding right?!?  Your nostalgia is interfering with your ability to rationalize the concept that the majority of musical performances given to service members TODAY are through the USO/ related community groups, not military bands.

Keep current pay, cut concurrent tuition assistance for those within the first four years of Active military service, eliminate all AirShows and Bands and privatize as many on Base/ Post/ Station services to lowest bid contractors. Why we have Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines running Gymnasiums and Dining Facilities is unknown.  Heck, let AAFES takeover all Service Support Functions (i.e. Services Squadrons).

[PHall]

Perhaps Tuition Assistance during Active Duty should be cut.  That particular program is purely an incentive to recruit more warm bodies.  If it is not apparent, the next few years will see our Active, Reserve and Guard numbers cut big time.  It will become a "we select only the best from our applicant pool" military.  Filling ever growing uniforms and increasing personnel quotas are long over, we are entering a humongous drawdown.

If all goes as expected, BRACC next year will be devastating!  The days of free AirShows at taxpayer expense are long gone.

To the person who said morale is the reason for Military Bands....your kidding right?!?  Your nostalgia is interfering with your ability to rationalize the concept that the majority of musical performances given to service members TODAY are through the USO/ related community groups, not military bands.

Keep current pay, cut concurrent tuition assistance for those within the first four years of Active military service, eliminate all AirShows and Bands and privatize as many on Base/ Post/ Station services to lowest bid contractors. Why we have Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines running Gymnasiums and Dining Facilities is unknown.  Heck, let AAFES takeover all Service Support Functions (i.e. Services Squadrons).

1. BRAC has nothing to do with Airshows.

2. AAFES is the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, has nothing to do the MWR (Morale, Welfare and Recreation).
MWR's funding comes from Non-approriated funds, not the "budget". AAFES does donate a portion of their profits to support local MWR activities.

[abdsp51]

Those USO shows happen maybe a few times a year especially in theater and guess who fills that role in between either and AF or Army band.

And you realize privatizing those functions is part of the reason we are in this mess and actually costs more than the govt saves right?  Those lowest bidders are far from being lowest bidder and end of screwing service members even more and is a huge scam. 

You still fail to realize that people and their families are a far more valuable asset than equipment.  I see you would rather have a new toy to play with rather than have the bodies with the know how to fix it.

There is far more wasteful spending occurring than an airshow and a mil band going on.  I bet you would just love it to have the mil machine grind to a halt so that we can get a handful of new planes to play with and too bad for anyone who's career progression is impeded  to fund those shiny toys. 

[Cliff_Chambliss]

If all else fails the US can "copy" the famed English aerobatic team " The Red  Arrows Sparrows as shown here>  (budget costs =minimal).

The Red Sparrows

[jimmydeanno]

I wouldn't rather either.  There used to be a time where the DoD wasn't some sort of sacred cow that couldn't be criticized and the civilian population wasn't afraid to keep it in check, since that's who they work for.

DoD has become a function of it's budget.  It has done remarkably well at spending all of their practically unlimited budget.  Now that it's budget isn't unlimited they just need to deal with it.

The practical reality is that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemy, not provide $40k jobs to unskilled 18 year olds and spend the next 20 years providing their irrelevant education to prepare them for "the outside world," while then providing a living wage for the rest of their life at age 38. 

[lordmonar]

Even if you're in the old GIBill and paid in (your whole whopping $1000), you still get about a 4500X return ob that investment.  So, it's still the taxpayer paying for your education.  Even though it's original intent isn't to be used on active duty, and is designed to help with reacclimation to "civilian life", it can and is used by people on AD.  Basically it's a free bachelors degree.

TA, covers 100% of the course expense for military members on AD (undergrad).  Many Guard units have "tuition waiver" with their respective state schools.  Even though the post-undergrad TA gets capped each semester, it's another free degree.  So, someone who is on AD for a while could easily get a free Masters degree without touching their GIBill. 

So, how many degrees am I expected to pay for for one individual?  On the outside, people are expected to pay their own education expenses, and if their career stagnates that is their own problem. 

I have no problem with having education benefits for military folks, but concurrent, redundant education benefits seem like a big waste.

TA does not always cover 100%.   It is set to cover most of the tuition costs....but not all tuition cots.  Also books, and fees are NOT covered by TA.  Also some services have caps on the spending so if you are taking more then a one course a term you may have to pay that out of your pocket.

Yes I understand as a tax payer you are worried that your money is being spent frivilously.   I disagree with your asumption that higher education is not a benifit to the military as a whole and not to just the individual.

You want smart educated people in the upper ranks......well you have to help them along....or hire them......since the USAF can't hire a college graduate and make him a SNCO you have build up.

This by the way is why the USAF pays for things like JROTC and CAP cadet programs.

Either way.....as of right now there is not TA........so we are cutting "wasteful" spending.

Full Disclosure:   I have a CCAF AAS in Electronics Technology and BA in History from University of Maryland University College..........paid for (in part) by TA.   

[jimmydeanno]

I disagree with your asumption that higher education is not a benifit to the military as a whole and not to just the individual.

I never made that assumption.  I think that having intelligent people in the military benefits everyone.  What I don't agree with is having numerous programs that all pay for the same thing.  Our enlisted folks come into the military (for the most part) directly out of high school, where they are put through basic, then sent to a vocational style school to learn a trade.  From day one, they get their month of vacation a year, free housing, food, free medical and dental, pension plan, access to Thrift Savings Plan, GI Bill, Tuition Assistance, subsidized groceries, gas, movies, practically non-existent premiums for their family's healthcare, numerous other free vocational schools, etc.  On top of that, they get their base pay.

Everyone makes it out like our military members are so underpaid and are getting the short end of the stick.  In reality, they have the best benefits package I've ever seen, and the base pay "looks" low, but is really just spending money because the necessities are already paid for.  So, the E-1 that "only" makes 20k/yr (because his house, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, retirement contributions, etc are already paid for) can use some of his money to take a class here and there to further his own career - not expect me to do it for him.

We've already determined that an educated military is beneficial, so why don't we just take whatever money someone uses on TA during their time on AD and reduce the GI Bill benefit accordingly? We act like every military member leaving the military is leaving without some sort of skill that is useful on the outside, or that most people didn't pick what they wanted their job to be when they signed the contract. 

I suppose that my point is Americans are willing to pay for military education, and have been for a while.  So, get your degree while you're on active duty in something you're interested in or want to be when you retire at age 38, or don't and use your GI Bill when you get out.  Pick one and we'll use the extra money to pay down our nation's 16 trillion in debt and alleviate the trillion dollar deficit that we're running.  Then stop acting like the military is being so mistreated because we aren't going to give every military member 150k in education benefits simply because they signed up.

[lordmonar]

I disagree with your asumption that higher education is not a benifit to the military as a whole and not to just the individual.

I never made that assumption.  I think that having intelligent people in the military benefits everyone.  What I don't agree with is having numerous programs that all pay for the same thing.  Our enlisted folks come into the military (for the most part) directly out of high school, where they are put through basic, then sent to a vocational style school to learn a trade.  From day one, they get their month of vacation a year, free housing, food, free medical and dental, pension plan, access to Thrift Savings Plan, GI Bill, Tuition Assistance, subsidized groceries, gas, movies, practically non-existent premiums for their family's healthcare, numerous other free vocational schools, etc.  On top of that, they get their base pay.

Yep....the also get the "right" to loose all their constutional rights, they have no say on where they live, what work they have to do, when they have to do it......oh and the get shot at from time to time.

I used to get one of those "this is what you would be paid in the civilan world for all your perks and benifits"......and I still got paid less then my civilain counterparts.........so.....go on.....I'm listening.

Everyone makes it out like our military members are so underpaid and are getting the short end of the stick.  In reality, they have the best benefits package I've ever seen, and the base pay "looks" low, but is really just spending money because the necessities are already paid for.  So, the E-1 that "only" makes 20k/yr (because his house, food, clothing, utilities, health insurance, retirement contributions, etc are already paid for) can use some of his money to take a class here and there to further his own career - not expect me to do it for him.

Okay....but not a lot of E-1's are taking extra classes.....what with all the OJT, Deployments, training, and work that he is doing.....but Okay......I'll follow you for a moment.......An E-1 makes excellent pay for an 18 year old just out of high school.....but the USAF is not looking at him as an E-1.....someday that E-1 is going to be an E-7 and we want him educated so we give him incentives to use his own personal time and own personal money to futher his education.   

"We've already determined that an educated military is beneficial, so why don't we just take whatever money someone uses on TA during their time on AD and reduce the GI Bill benefit accordingly?[/quote]
The GI bill is not part of defense spending IIRC.   I agree that we spend a lot on the Vet benifits.......made a lot of sense when we were drafting milllions during WWII and Vietnam......but that is apples and oranges.   VA benifits have nothing to do with military TA....except some AD military tap the GI bill to pay for some of the classes that TA does not cover.....so your plan has a flaw right there.

We act like every military member leaving the military is leaving without some sort of skill that is useful on the outside, or that most people didn't pick what they wanted their job to be when they signed the contract.

You are right...the USAF did right by me.  22 years, learned to be an electronics technician.   What about the poor slob infantry grunt?  Or the Ammo Troop?   Or the Food Services Specialists..........not much call for those skills (at a comprable wage) in the "real" world....hence the need for GI Bill.

I suppose that my point is Americans are willing to pay for military education, and have been for a while.  So, get your degree while you're on active duty in something you're interested in or want to be when you retire at age 38, or don't and use your GI Bill when you get out.  Pick one and we'll use the extra money to pay down our nation's 16 trillion in debt and alleviate the trillion dollar deficit that we're running.  Then stop acting like the military is being so mistreated because we aren't going to give every military member 150k in education benefits simply because they signed up.

TA and the GI bill will not make a dent in the debt......nor the deficit.   I agree that everyone is going to have to take one in the balls on this.  But of all the people you pick on......the benifits of the military is the last one you should be looking at.

I will be the first to admit that the military is a good deal.  And I advised all my subordinates to use all the benifits that they could while on AD.
But let's not forget all the sacrafices that they face too.
One that your average joe makeing $45K/year faces.   If he did....then he would be making $100K+/year.....this I know because I'm now a blood sucking contractor and I know what they pay to go to the sand box and get shot at doing the same job that the blue/green suiters are doing.

So.......take your "I pay taxes" argument somewhere else.......let's find out why we are building bridges to no where.  Fishing Bays with no boats.  Why the military can't close unneeded bases because of what state their in and who is the chairman of what committee.

Ask why congress is wasting time on what medal is higher then the Bronze Star in stead of fixing our budget so we can turn out TA back on and restart the airshow, et al.

[jimmydeanno]

Pat, this is the sacred cow argument I was talking about.  For some reason you are assuming that I'm not looking at the bridges to nowhere and simply going after the vets.  We aren't talking about the bridges to nowhere, we were talking about DoD cuts.

I think the whole military pay system is antiquated, designed around an 19th century caste system that operates under the assumption that the enlisted folks are uneducated and are lower parts of society.  Things like BAH and BAS should just be lumped into your pay.  Our military members aren't operating on the western frontier.  The fact that we pay someone more because they have children or a spouse is absurd.  These are the types of civilian equivalents that I talk about when I compare jobs in the military and civilian sector.  Why do we pay an 18 year old maintenance troop differently than a married one with kids?  Both entry level jobs doing the same thing.

Everyone always brings up the "they get shot and and make sacrifices" argument, too.  I agree, but the average military member isn't sitting in a combat zone 24/7.  So, we provide incentive for the situations when they are in harms way.  Going to a war zone?  Congratulations, we recognize that it's a dangerous job, so we bump your pay by X amount (say double) while you are there.  When you get back and are riding a desk like you do 99% of the time, you get your normal pay.  When they get back and we've messed them up then we provide benefits for that.  But let's not set up a pay system that operates under the potential that you could someday be put in harms way, lets compensate them when we actually plan to.

I see everyday how hard many military members have it with their deployment schedules and time away from their families, and they should be compensated for it.  However, I also see how "hard" military members have it while they work Monday-Friday, 8-4 with an hour lunch, three-day weekends every other week, all holidays off, squadron picnics, morale days, golf tournaments, PTDYs, and time to work out.  Shoot, they don't even have to pick what to wear each day     You and I know that everyday life for most military members is pretty cushy and that sitting in the finance office in Florida is hardly "in harms way."  I've even had countless former military folks that got out early say that they wished they never had because they "never worked so [darn] hard until they got a civilian job."

My example of the life skills earned is still valid.  Even the infantry troop often ends up going into police work or security, so there is skills that are earned.  But again, life is full of choices and signing up for the infantry is going to have consequences in the first place.  So, that goes back to the idea that if you're in a position to get an education while your on AD, you get that choice.  If not, use your GI Bill afterward if you really have no valuable skill to use in regular society.

Your E-1 not taking classes example is even skewed, because you and I know that all that OJT, CBTs, CDCs, training, etc., that they take is all transferable into college credit - that's the whole concept of the CCAF system, no?  Even outside of CCAF, there are plenty of colleges who will give credit for all that stuff.  After a few years, you take things like English, History, and Math and voila, they give you an Associates.  Every online class I'm in now is comprised of about 30% deployed military members.  So, deployment isn't even an obstacle to getting your education while on AD now. Careers like Comm even get cool certifications out of the deal, A+, Security +, CISSP, all paid for.  If I want those to get a job I'm going to need to find an extra 20k or so and get certified before I apply for the job, not get the job and then spend months learning how to do it.  But either way, the incentive for the E-1 to use his own funds to advance is the same as they are for me - better pay, more benefits.  But, like I said before, society is willing to help our military folks with their education, so whatever. 

And just for numbers, the GI Bill cost the US taxpayer $4.65 billion dollars in 2011, and is expected to cost $90 billion over 15 years.  In 2010, TA cost over 500 million.  So, we're looking at 5 billion dollars a year in veteran education benefits, which is roughly $16 for every man woman and child in the US, $32 if you consider that half don't pay taxes.  But, if you're trying to shave 30 billion off your budget, something that costs you 5 is a pretty good chunck, no?  Did you also know that recent data shows that our military folks are paid about 7-10% MORE than their civilian counterparts?  Congress has been giving raises over and above what the DoD recommendation has been since 2000.  Military pay increased 20% between 2000 and 2006 and keeps rising, despite DoD meeting its recruiting goals month after month after month.  So, the pay and benefits must be more than adequate, no?

But realistically, if we look at the federal budget, if we eliminated all government spending with exception to DoD, Medicare and Social Security, we'd still be running a deficit...so where do you think we need to be looking at?  I'm not picking on the vets, or trying to rake them over the coals.  It's just an honest dialog about the sacred cow syndrome that the country has adopted towards DoD.

[SarDragon]

I wouldn't rather either.  There used to be a time where the DoD wasn't some sort of sacred cow that couldn't be criticized and the civilian population wasn't afraid to keep it in check, since that's who they work for.

DoD has become a function of it's budget.  It has done remarkably well at spending all of their practically unlimited budget.  Now that it's budget isn't unlimited they just need to deal with it.

The practical reality is that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemy, not provide $40k jobs to unskilled 18 year olds and spend the next 20 years providing their irrelevant education to prepare them for "the outside world," while then providing a living wage for the rest of their life at age 38.

Living wage my ass. Military retirement pay has NEVER been enough to live on by itself. Ever! For me, I'm lucky for it to be enough to make my house payment. Even that hasn't always been the case.

My dad couldn't live on just his retirement as an E-7 over 28, in 1966, nor could I in 1989 (E-6 over 18), nor could My Sweetie by herself in 2000 (E-7 over 24). We can't even do it jointly on just the two retirement checks.

[huey]

Heard today that just about all of the airshow schedules past May have been cancelled.

Sadly, Indy Air Show is also cancelled!

[Tom Szekely]

I got into this late and may be duplicating somone else's comment, but what cuts? 

The US government is spending twice as much as it did in 2002, the population didn't double, my income hasn't doubled, sequestration is a reduction in the automatic rate of year-over-year increase, not a real cut. More in constant inflation adjuisted dollars was spent last year than in any previous year, and finally, when I was a young man during the height of the Cold War, the Kennedy Administration alotted about half of all Federal expenditures on defense.  It dropped to as low as 16%-17% after the "peace dividend" and is now up to the low to mid 20's now, wars and all.

If you believe that this spending was and remains necessary to avert a 1929-style economic crash, consider the analogy of taking water out of the deep end (taxes) of a swimming pool and pouring it into the shallow end (stimulus) as a means of raising the overall water level. 

With minimal respect to Paul Krugman, this isn't all that complicated. In English idiom we "make" money while in Lating Tongues it's "found" or "won" because it's not zero-sum. Wealth is created via things like Ricardo's Law of Compartative Advantage and value added by talent and skill.  It's not by the exploitation of others.

[Critical AOA]

 A well designed and produced TV commercial will reach a far wider audience and do a better job of recruiting than any airshow.  The value of these shows as a recruiting tool is over hyped.
 
I personally enjoy attending airshows such as Oshkosh, Sun 'n Fun or Chino and the many others that are similar albeit much smaller.  I love to see the WW2 warbirds, biplanes, aerobatic shows, experimental planes, new production GA aircraft, skydiving, etc.  These are much more of a pleasure to watch than shows heavy on the jets.  Watching a fighter jet scream by or walking through a large cargo plane just doesn't do it for me. 

Another good thing about the shows I prefer is I get to walk up and get a closer look and even touch and feel the hardware.  I can talk to the aircraft owner or manufacturer.  I can see the demos of new products, speak to vendors and more.   

[jimmydeanno]

I wouldn't rather either.  There used to be a time where the DoD wasn't some sort of sacred cow that couldn't be criticized and the civilian population wasn't afraid to keep it in check, since that's who they work for.

DoD has become a function of it's budget.  It has done remarkably well at spending all of their practically unlimited budget.  Now that it's budget isn't unlimited they just need to deal with it.

The practical reality is that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemy, not provide $40k jobs to unskilled 18 year olds and spend the next 20 years providing their irrelevant education to prepare them for "the outside world," while then providing a living wage for the rest of their life at age 38.

Living wage my ass. Military retirement pay has NEVER been enough to live on by itself. Ever! For me, I'm lucky for it to be enough to make my house payment. Even that hasn't always been the case.

My dad couldn't live on just his retirement as an E-7 over 28, in 1966, nor could I in 1989 (E-6 over 18), nor could My Sweetie by herself in 2000 (E-7 over 24). We can't even do it jointly on just the two retirement checks.

I'm not sure what your individual circumstance is, but our families situation would result in the first retirement check (fast forward a few years) being around 5.8k/month after taxes.  That wouldn't change our standard of living in the slightest.  That's including two houses, two new cars, two kids, vacations, single-income.  Assuming that you spent those 20 years paying a mortgage instead of renting an apartment, theoretically you wouldn't even have a mortage/house payment by the time you retired.  I would hope that someone could live on 50k/year.  Or, during that time instead of paying a mortgage, putting money into TSP.

[lordmonar]

Pat, this is the sacred cow argument I was talking about.  For some reason you are assuming that I'm not looking at the bridges to nowhere and simply going after the vets.  We aren't talking about the bridges to nowhere, we were talking about DoD cuts.

No it is not a sacred cow.......if we got to cut TA....cut TA.....but don't jump on your "I'm a Tax Payer" high horse and complain about how military people are just sucking on the government teat!

I think the whole military pay system is antiquated, designed around an 19th century caste system that operates under the assumption that the enlisted folks are uneducated and are lower parts of society.  Things like BAH and BAS should just be lumped into your pay.  Our military members aren't operating on the western frontier.  The fact that we pay someone more because they have children or a spouse is absurd.  These are the types of civilian equivalents that I talk about when I compare jobs in the military and civilian sector.  Why do we pay an 18 year old maintenance troop differently than a married one with kids?  Both entry level jobs doing the same thing.

Because if you don't then the 18 year old with kids will not be able to afford being in the military.  Your argument has logical merit....but in fact we are saving money with BAS and BAH....because the alternitive (to just lump it into your pay) means that we increase the pay for the 18 year single guy.....because with out it....the 18 year olds with dependants will have to QUIT the military because they can't afford to support a family and be in the military.   

Everyone always brings up the "they get shot and and make sacrifices" argument, too.  I agree, but the average military member isn't sitting in a combat zone 24/7.  So, we provide incentive for the situations when they are in harms way.  Going to a war zone?  Congratulations, we recognize that it's a dangerous job, so we bump your pay by X amount (say double) while you are there.  When you get back and are riding a desk like you do 99% of the time, you get your normal pay.  When they get back and we've messed them up then we provide benefits for that.  But let's not set up a pay system that operates under the potential that you could someday be put in harms way, lets compensate them when we actually plan to.

How about just pay what they are worth?   Like I said....as a blue suiter RPA maintenance production supervisor/NCOIC MSgt.....I got payed $40K/year......as a civilan RPA maintenance Tech (wrench turner worker bee type) I would get $90K/year!   

So the little benifits like TA and BAS/BAQ, the non existance saveings of the BX and Commissary.........are not really saving you all that much as a tax payer.

I see everyday how hard many military members have it with their deployment schedules and time away from their families, and they should be compensated for it.  However, I also see how "hard" military members have it while they work Monday-Friday, 8-4 with an hour lunch, three-day weekends every other week, all holidays off, squadron picnics, morale days, golf tournaments, PTDYs, and time to work out.  Shoot, they don't even have to pick what to wear each day     You and I know that everyday life for most military members is pretty cushy and that sitting in the finance office in Florida is hardly "in harms way."  I've even had countless former military folks that got out early say that they wished they never had because they "never worked so [darn] hard until they got a civilian job."

You are right......most of us just sit around doing next to nothing all day.....waiting for the next war.   So what you are really saying is that we need a smaller AD and larger Guard and Reserve.   And For the record there are just as many people working 12 hours shifts, crazy schedules and have to do their PT and appointments on their own time.   Just talk to a SF troop about all their time off.     

My example of the life skills earned is still valid.  Even the infantry troop often ends up going into police work or security, so there is skills that are earned.  But again, life is full of choices and signing up for the infantry is going to have consequences in the first place.  So, that goes back to the idea that if you're in a position to get an education while your on AD, you get that choice.  If not, use your GI Bill afterward if you really have no valuable skill to use in regular society.

Your E-1 not taking classes example is even skewed, because you and I know that all that OJT, CBTs, CDCs, training, etc., that they take is all transferable into college credit - that's the whole concept of the CCAF system, no?  Even outside of CCAF, there are plenty of colleges who will give credit for all that stuff.  After a few years, you take things like English, History, and Math and voila, they give you an Associates.  Every online class I'm in now is comprised of about 30% deployed military members.  So, deployment isn't even an obstacle to getting your education while on AD now. Careers like Comm even get cool certifications out of the deal, A+, Security +, CISSP, all paid for.  If I want those to get a job I'm going to need to find an extra 20k or so and get certified before I apply for the job, not get the job and then spend months learning how to do it.  But either way, the incentive for the E-1 to use his own funds to advance is the same as they are for me - better pay, more benefits.  But, like I said before, society is willing to help our military folks with their education, so whatever.

??

And just for numbers, the GI Bill cost the US taxpayer $4.65 billion dollars in 2011, and is expected to cost $90 billion over 15 years.  In 2010, TA cost over 500 million.  So, we're looking at 5 billion dollars a year in veteran education benefits, which is roughly $16 for every man woman and child in the US, $32 if you consider that half don't pay taxes.  But, if you're trying to shave 30 billion off your budget, something that costs you 5 is a pretty good chunck, no?  Did you also know that recent data shows that our military folks are paid about 7-10% MORE than their civilian counterparts?  Congress has been giving raises over and above what the DoD recommendation has been since 2000.  Military pay increased 20% between 2000 and 2006 and keeps rising, despite DoD meeting its recruiting goals month after month after month.  So, the pay and benefits must be more than adequate, no?

I agree.....the GI Bill is a lot of money.....and maybe should be looked at......but we are not talking about the GI bill we are talking about the $500M of TA......much cheaper.....and only a $1.75 per person.

But realistically, if we look at the federal budget, if we eliminated all government spending with exception to DoD, Medicare and Social Security, we'd still be running a deficit...so where do you think we need to be looking at?  I'm not picking on the vets, or trying to rake them over the coals.  It's just an honest dialog about the sacred cow syndrome that the country has adopted towards DoD.

I agree that Vet benifits can be a third rail some times..........but let's face it....DoD spends more on whiz bang stuff then they do on TA.  Attack other stupid stuff....like maybe the military academies.....blue angels, thrunder birds, the pentagon, Arlington cemetry.   I remember when the military stopped sending buglers to funerals how much people got up in arms about it!   There is no TDY pay for them now.

Like I said before.......honest discussion about military spending is a must and the military should not be a sacred cow.....but you should not be able to pull the "I'm a tax payer and why do I have to pay for two degrees" card either. 

[SarDragon]

I wouldn't rather either.  There used to be a time where the DoD wasn't some sort of sacred cow that couldn't be criticized and the civilian population wasn't afraid to keep it in check, since that's who they work for.

DoD has become a function of it's budget.  It has done remarkably well at spending all of their practically unlimited budget.  Now that it's budget isn't unlimited they just need to deal with it.

The practical reality is that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemy, not provide $40k jobs to unskilled 18 year olds and spend the next 20 years providing their irrelevant education to prepare them for "the outside world," while then providing a living wage for the rest of their life at age 38.

Living wage my ass. Military retirement pay has NEVER been enough to live on by itself. Ever! For me, I'm lucky for it to be enough to make my house payment. Even that hasn't always been the case.

My dad couldn't live on just his retirement as an E-7 over 28, in 1966, nor could I in 1989 (E-6 over 18), nor could My Sweetie by herself in 2000 (E-7 over 24). We can't even do it jointly on just the two retirement checks.

I'm not sure what your individual circumstance is, but our families situation would result in the first retirement check (fast forward a few years) being around 5.8k/month after taxes.  That wouldn't change our standard of living in the slightest.  That's including two houses, two new cars, two kids, vacations, single-income.  Assuming that you spent those 20 years paying a mortgage instead of renting an apartment, theoretically you wouldn't even have a mortage/house payment by the time you retired.  I would hope that someone could live on 50k/year.  Or, during that time instead of paying a mortgage, putting money into TSP.

Well, I guess I forgot the officers, 'cause I sure know there are no enlisted folks making enough to end up with $5000+ a month in retirement pay.

The current E-9 max pay is $5,357.40/mo. Seventy-five percent of that is $4018.15/mo. Adding on 3% per year for 5 years gives us $4658.02, still nowhere close to $5000 before taxes. adding 5% per year gets us to 5128.16, before taxes. Using a reasonable amount of 15% for Fed income tax takes us back to $4358.94/mo.

So where we at now? Help me understand your situation, against mine.

[Stonewall]

You guys don't even want to hear my opinion on the matter.

It raises my blood pressure just considering jumping into this debate, that's why I never get into it.  And yes, my argument would shock the hell out of you, since I'm a veteran and still serving part-time, plus two deployments in my time.  Yeah, grrr...

[NIN]

I just saw the announcement that the 101st Airborne Division's Parachute Demonstration Team will not be doing any demonstration jumps after 1 April 2013 for this season.

And they, like the Golden Knights and the 82nd & SOCOM demo teams, did a lot more than just airshows.

[Eclipse]

This today from the LA Times:http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-las-vegas-sequester-grounds-20130327,0,4214002.story
(I think Lord Monar already mentioned the Nellis cancellations)

Cool picture, though:



"The Associated Press reports that the Thunderbirds, who wow crowds with their formation flying wherever they appear, have canceled all remaining public appearances for 2013. The Associated Press reported that the Army's Golden Knights, an elite skydiving team, also had canceled the rest of their schedule.

Among the biggest events to go dark is the Cleveland National Air Show, which has been held each Labor Day weekend for the last three decades. The aerial display draws tens of thousands of visitors to the Lake Erie shore.

"Aviation Nation was a way for us to show people who normally don't have the opportunity to see what we do here [at Nellis]," Cornish said in the statement. "It is my hope that we will be able to resume Aviation Nation in the near future.""

[Eclipse]

Blue Angels, too:

"March 4(updated Mar 21) Notice from Blue Angels Public Affairs Office: There is a lot of discussion right now regarding the status of the Blue Angels 2013 show schedule. What we can tell you is that the Navy intends to cancel Blue Angel performances scheduled in April as an outcome of the budget cuts resulting from sequestration and the full year continuing resolution. This affects performances at four locations: MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL; NAS Corpus Christi, TX; Vidalia, GA and MCAS Beaufort, SC. The Navy will wait until the last possible moment before making cancellations beyond April. Thank you for all your support for not only the Blue Angels, but the entire Navy and Marine Corps. The Blue Angels are currently training so that if the decision to cancel the April shows is reversed, the team can continue to perform and inspire future generations of Sailors and Marines."

[Patterson]

I see everyday how hard many military members have it with their deployment schedules and time away from their families, and they should be compensated for it.  However, I also see how "hard" military members have it while they work Monday-Friday, 8-4 with an hour lunch, three-day weekends every other week, all holidays off, squadron picnics, morale days, golf tournaments, PTDYs, and time to work out.  Shoot, they don't even have to pick what to wear each day     You and I know that everyday life for most military members is pretty cushy and that sitting in the finance office in Florida is hardly "in harms way."  I've even had countless former military folks that got out early say that they wished they never had because they "never worked so [darn] hard until they got a civilian job."

Cushy?!?!  I get up at 5:00AM everyday and "work out" with my Soldiers. I get home around 7:00AM in time to see my kids leaving for school and waiting for the bathroom as my wife takes much too long to finish up.  We share passing comments as I jump in the shower and she leaves for work.  I am back to the unit by 8:00AM, non-stop meetings, briefings and admin work until noon.  I am lucky if I even get a lunch most days.  The afternoon is similar to the morning except retreat does not signal the end of my work day.  I arrive home between 6:00 and 6:30PM, depending on the kids activities I might not get home until 8:00 or 9:00PM. Picnics, morale days and related activities are not always a welcome thing!!  Those of us responsible to coordinate and be at every function are exhausted!  Lets also not forget that long holiday weekends are not always enjoyable for those of us with families.  Just because I have a Friday off doesn't mean my Wife or Kids have the day off! 

If you have ever been deployed or even separated from your family at the lengths our military members are, you would understand why there are long weekends, benefits that are unequal to civilian life etc. 

The difference that has eluded you between a civilian and a member of the military is the oath those of us who are privelaged to serve take.  I don't think FedEx or McDonalds requires you to take an oath or voluntarily sign a promise of contractual servitude...

[NIN]

Cushy?!?!  I get up at 5:00AM everyday and "work out" with my Soldiers. I get home around 7:00AM in time to see my kids leaving for school and waiting for the bathroom as my wife takes much too long to finish up.  We share passing comments as I jump in the shower and she leaves for work.  I am back to the unit by 8:00AM, non-stop meetings, briefings and admin work until noon.  I am lucky if I even get a lunch most days.  The afternoon is similar to the morning except retreat does not signal the end of my work day.  I arrive home between 6:00 and 6:30PM, depending on the kids activities I might not get home until 8:00 or 9:00PM. Picnics, morale days and related activities are not always a welcome thing!!  Those of us responsible to coordinate and be at every function are exhausted!  Lets also not forget that long holiday weekends are not always enjoyable for those of us with families.  Just because I have a Friday off doesn't mean my Wife or Kids have the day off! 

If you have ever been deployed or even separated from your family at the lengths our military members are, you would understand why there are long weekends, benefits that are unequal to civilian life etc. 

The difference that has eluded you between a civilian and a member of the military is the oath those of us who are privelaged to serve take.  I don't think FedEx or McDonalds requires you to take an oath or voluntarily sign a promise of contractual servitude...

If I don't miss my read, jimmydeanno was using hyperbole. He would be one of the last people I know to legitimately say that military life is "cushy"

[Eclipse]

Meh, who needs military jets?   Just let an F-18 pilot strap on a Dreamliner...

Impressive Qatar Airways Boeing 787 Dreamliner Display, Farnborough.

[johnnyb47]

Meh, who needs military jets?   Just let an F-18 pilot strap on a Dreamliner...

What, no barrel roll? Psh....

[Eclipse]

AF lifts grounding of combat squadrons, Thunderbirds

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130715/NEWS04/130715001/AF-lifts-grounding-combat-squadrons-Thunderbirds

Air Combat Command announced today that it has restored $208 million as part of a $1.8 billion reprogramming allocation authorized by Congress.
This additional funding will re-instate training and test operations for squadrons in Air Combat Command, along with those assigned to
U.S. Air Forces Europe and Pacific Air Forces, including the Air Warfare Center's Weapons School, aggressors and the Thunderbirds aerial demonstration team.

[NIN]

I offered to stand in for the Golden Knights in a CAP uniform. Neither the AF, CAP or the Army was thrilled with the concept...

[SamFranklin]

I think the whole military pay system is antiquated, designed around an 19th century caste system that operates under the assumption that the enlisted folks are uneducated and are lower parts of society.  Things like BAH and BAS should just be lumped into your pay.  Our military members aren't operating on the western frontier.  The fact that we pay someone more because they have children or a spouse is absurd.  These are the types of civilian equivalents that I talk about when I compare jobs in the military and civilian sector.  Why do we pay an 18 year old maintenance troop differently than a married one with kids?  Both entry level jobs doing the same thing.

..... Did you also know that recent data shows that our military folks are paid about 7-10% MORE than their civilian counterparts?  Congress has been giving raises over and above what the DoD recommendation has been since 2000.  Military pay increased 20% between 2000 and 2006 and keeps rising, despite DoD meeting its recruiting goals month after month after month.  So, the pay and benefits must be more than adequate, no?

This point by jimmydeano is right on target. Even AFA, hardly an anti-servicemember organization, admits that military pay has gone whacko  ("Air Force Magazine," July 2010)

"It is important to note that the military's own goal is not strict parity; it is for troops to earn in the 70th percentile (that is, to be better paid than 70 percent of comparable civilians), not to have "average" pay—or the best pay.

The Congressional Budget Office determined that military members in 2006 were actually in the 75th pay percentile. "Since then, military pay raises have continued to exceed the increases of civilian wages and salaries," CBO officials told Congress this year.

Further, the pay gap only counts basic pay. Not included in the calculation are the value of military housing and sustenance allowances, a major portion of total military pay. By the CBO's calculations, military pay—when housing and food allowances are factored in—has actually outpaced private-sector pay by 11 percent since 1982. RAND has also found essentially no pay gap since 1982....

[Instead of paying everyone unnecessarily high pay] the money could be better applied to targeted bonuses in highly stressed career fields. It is unlikely, though, that Congress will agree.

We've digressed into politics and I'm not helping, but geesh, look at US military spending overall:  We spend more than the TEN NEAREST COMPETITORS COMBINED. You could cut the Pentagon by half and still have more going than China + Russia + UK. I'm for a republic, not an empire. Ike was of the same mind.

http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

[MSG Mac]

AF lifts grounding of combat squadrons, Thunderbirds

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130715/NEWS04/130715001/AF-lifts-grounding-combat-squadrons-Thunderbirds

Air Combat Command announced today that it has restored $208 million as part of a $1.8 billion reprogramming allocation authorized by Congress.
This additional funding will re-instate training and test operations for squadrons in Air Combat Command, along with those assigned to
U.S. Air Forces Europe and Pacific Air Forces, including the Air Warfare Center's Weapons School, aggressors and the Thunderbirds aerial demonstration team.

The T-Birds, Blue Angels, and other "Demonstration Units" should not have been reactivated. When there is a serious money crunch in the Defense Department and we cannot fund operational flying, why have show ponies?

[Eclipse]

The T-Birds, Blue Angels, and other "Demonstration Units" should not have been reactivated. When there is a serious money crunch in the Defense Department and we cannot fund operational flying, why have show ponies?

The article mentions a loss of readiness in regards to the combat units, as to the demonstration units, those air shows attendees who are constituents, and those constituents vote and
bug their congressmen, etc.

I don't agree with it, but that's at least a plausible explanation.

[Eclipse]

The Blue Angels are back after being grounded for nearly a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/us/blue-angels-fly-irpt/index.html

"(CNN) -- Clipped wings no more, the Blue Angels are soaring again. The blue and gold jets are returning to the sky after being grounded much of last year because of forced spending cuts.
The U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron kicks off the 2014 air show season with its first show Saturday, March 15, at Naval Air Facility El Centro in California.
The nation's best military fliers halted their iconic aerobatic performances in April 2013.
But aerospace and military fans are rejoicing as the Blue Angels return this year for more dynamic aerial demonstrations. The team is scheduled for 68 performances at 35 locations between now and November 8."

[SarDragon]

The schedule has been cut back to the extent that former three day performances have been reduced to two days in most, if not all, cases.

[PHall]

All of the Demonstration Teams are back. But their schedules are reduced from what they did before and costs are a major issue now.

[SunDog]

I wouldn't rather either.  There used to be a time where the DoD wasn't some sort of sacred cow that couldn't be criticized and the civilian population wasn't afraid to keep it in check, since that's who they work for.

DoD has become a function of it's budget.  It has done remarkably well at spending all of their practically unlimited budget.  Now that it's budget isn't unlimited they just need to deal with it.

The practical reality is that the purpose of the military is to destroy our enemy, not provide $40k jobs to unskilled 18 year olds and spend the next 20 years providing their irrelevant education to prepare them for "the outside world," while then providing a living wage for the rest of their life at age 38.

Military retirement is based on base pay - excludes other pay and allowances in the computation. For practical purpose, no one is living on military retirment income after 20 years of service.  It ends up beibg about 1/4, more or less a bit, depending. My son is an O3E, a pilot, and living off-base with his family.  A very large portion of his present income, like quarters, flight pay, etc., won't be factored in his retirement at 20 years service.

PCS moves tend to hurt his chances of building equity in a home, especially in locals with high closing costs (basically sales taxes on houses, really). His wife is a teacher, and though her job is "portable", union situations tend to have her "starting from scratch" on each new job.

When he was accepted for a commissioning program, he stayed on AD while he finished the two semesters he needed to complete his undergrad degree (he enlisted out of college) and it was a good deal, for sure, except he did have to use his VA to pay tuition - Unka Sam didn't pick up the tab for that.

No complaints - he's paid well enough, unless you figure it on a per hour basis, of course.  The retirement he picks up at twenty will be about what a civilian in Fed, state, or local gov't would get for about the same amount of service in a defined benefit plan. Public safety folks do a bit better. Most folks not in gov't service don't have defined benefit plans anymore, of course.

[Walkman]

Thunderbirds are at two Michigan air shows this summer.