San Francisco votes to ban Blue Angels

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by tycho102

We're talking about San Francisco, here. What the heck is new? When the San Andreas moves, this issue will clear itself up.

edit--- They're not still flying those, are they? That plane rolled off the assembly line in about 1986.

Actually, yes, they are still F/A-18A/Bs . . . and they aren't looking to change anytime soon . . . although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17).

But as for San Francisco, and my wish for peace, I still see it's necessary to arm for war . . . and San Francisco is a beautiful place, spent my teen years there . . . love how open it is . . . but it's way to PC oh, the other peoples feelings, suppress non-liberal ideas . . . but the city is nice. Just don't let anyone know your a Republican . . . and it's all good.

But Have you ever been to the Marine Corps Club & Hotel . . . great place for servicemembers. I guess a bit of a left over from the hey days of the Sixth Army at the Presideo and half of 3rd Fleet being at NAS Alameda.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by JALU3

although they are suppose to be a battle ready unit, I would suppose they would only be used for CAP as they haven't had an upgrade to the new weapon systems . . . or could they handle a significant payload (the flaws of YF-17).

No, those planes are completely stripped to minimize weight. It would take well over a thousand man-hours just to stuff everything back in there. They're "battle ready" like New Orleans is "hurricane ready". The avioncs are the absolute bare minimal. The entire radar package has been pulled out. All the displays except the hud. The gun, too, but they actually had to throw some ballast in there to keep the center of gravity forward.

I looked through the "official" website, and it does indeed look like they are flying those 20+ year old airframes. From one aspect, you could say it's an amazingly strong aircraft. From another aspect, they're all going to undergo catastrophic structural fatigue within months of each other. I'd honestly have reservations of them flying anywhere near inhabited areas. They've not been subjected to typical flight patterns and stress.


I've only been to SanFran a couple of times, as a tourist.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by tycho102

I looked through the "official" website, and it does indeed look like they are flying those 20+ year old airframes. From one aspect, you could say it's an amazingly strong aircraft. From another aspect, they're all going to undergo catastrophic structural fatigue within months of each other. I'd honestly have reservations of them flying anywhere near inhabited areas. They've not been subjected to typical flight patterns and stress.

Remember, you'll be pointed out as a tourist if you don't call San Francisco as "The City", if you are wearing shorts, and you don't have a jacket with you.

Well as for the Airframes . . . that makes me wonder what their plan is when these airframes give out . . . I guess it's the era of the F-35C? If so, will the Thunderbirds follow suit using the F-35A?

[LibertyToad]

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a Sanctuary City for many immigrants from war torn countries and home to thousands of veterans of war who have experienced air bombardment and are at risk of being traumatized when the Blue Angels perform; and,


Typical Leftist, kindergarten crap. Amusing.

[August]

Originally Posted by tycho102

They're "battle ready" like New Orleans is "hurricane ready".

The term "battle ready" would refer to the pilots not the performance aircraft I think. Blue Angel pilots are all fully qualified combat pilots who are recruited from the Navys air arm and will go back to sea duty once their tour with the Angels is over. To those guys getting ready for battle is as simple as getting out of one cockpit and getting into another.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by August

The term "battle ready" would refer to the pilots not the performance aircraft I think. Blue Angel pilots are all fully qualified combat pilots who are recruited from the Navys air arm and will go back to sea duty once their tour with the Angels is over. To those guys getting ready for battle is as simple as getting out of one cockpit and getting into another.

Say, they do reload these aircraft and send them to "Camp Cupcake" . . . I wonder what it would look like if they offered Close in Air Support.

Man, I would want to see pictures of that.

[August]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Say, they do reload these aircraft and send them to "Camp Cupcake"

A squadron can have more planes than it has pilots. The fancy painted ones you see at airshows are not the same aircraft they'd be flying into combat.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by August

A squadron can have more planes than it has pilots. The fancy painted ones you see at airshows are not the same aircraft they'd be flying into combat.

From my understanding didn't the Squadron draw down from eight aircraft down to six?

[August]

Originally Posted by JALU3

From my understanding didn't the Squadron draw down from eight aircraft down to six?

Six aircraft performing at one time. That does not indicate how many pilots or aircraft they have in total.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Point is, guys, I am totally critical of earning starting helps, business chances and such - by willing to join the military first. That is no antimilitarism by me. I simply find it to be an extremely bad idea to give the military such a massive influence on civil society, and to give it the baits needed to lure young people with their minds still undergoing their adolescence to go to the army. It is not a job like any other. Becasue if you think it to the end, your profession is to kill and destroy, if ordered. Everything else (keeping the peace, guarding the free world, deter attackers), is ways and attempts only to squirm around that statement. In the face of the high numbers of wars and operations the Us has been engaged in since WWII, it also is not convicning to abstract it to the levelö of idealism how nice the world and the job in the military is - as long as there is no war.

Don't try to distort me. On many occasions I have said myself that I would like to see another and stronger understanding for the need of a better funded military her ein europe. I just totally disagree on the status the military enjoys in civil society in the US, and I disagree on the easiness with which the decision in favour for wars are made in the US. I insist on seeing the military as what iot is: a tool of destruction and killing. That's why I am so hesitent to use, not to mention: to glorify it.

I think we have found something we agree upon beside Steel Beasts.

I find the loss our reliance on the Citizen Soldier since the end of WWII (which was won by citizen soldiers on all fronts, on the air, land, and sea) to be disheartening, and very dangerous.

If the United States is Rome, then Nazi Germany and the USSR are our combined Carthage. And Rome lost as much as she gained from the defeat of her archenemy.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by Heibges

I think we have found something we agree upon beside Steel Beasts.

I find the loss our reliance on the Citizen Soldier since the end of WWII (which was won by citizen soldiers on all fronts, on the air, land, and sea) to be disheartening, and very dangerous.

If the United States is Rome, then Nazi Germany and the USSR are our combined Carthage. And Rome lost as much as she gained from the defeat of her archenemy.

There in lies our strategic weakness at this point, ever since the draw down during the previous administration we have let our National Guard Forces and Reserve Forces languish on the vine, as the saying goes, rather then taking the Cold War Bulk and transitioning it to stategic reserves.

Ideally, the bulk of ones forces would be reserves, with a small active force unless you're involved in major operations.

Well, our nation is involved in major operations, the force size hasn't increased significantly, and we're raiding the NG & AR to supplement a force that needs to be larger to handle the OPTEMPO that is currently being conducted.

So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

[seaniam81]

Originally Posted by Bill Nichols

No, I have a better solution. San Francisco can become "South British Columbia".

No you americans can keep san fran... we canadians dont want it.:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by JALU3

There in lies our strategic weakness at this point, ever since the draw down during the previous administration we have let our National Guard Forces and Reserve Forces languish on the vine, as the saying goes, rather then taking the Cold War Bulk and transitioning it to stategic reserves.

Ideally, the bulk of ones forces would be reserves, with a small active force unless you're involved in major operations.

Well, our nation is involved in major operations, the force size hasn't increased significantly, and we're raiding the NG & AR to supplement a force that needs to be larger to handle the OPTEMPO that is currently being conducted.

Whats going on wasn't supposed to happen. The plan since draw down from the cold war was supposed to be quick in quick out, short and extremely violent, max use of technology (civilians call it shock and awe) with short use of reserves and guard. The plans of mice and men!

So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

Thats because it would be party suicide to bring back the draft and thats what it would take. The cost of equipping today is waaay up there and as the man said "No new taxes". This is a sore subject for me. Politics costing lives and nobody with the balls to make it happen.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

So what does that mean . . . recruiting, equiping, training, training, training . . . except for the last part . . . we're doing to little of it.

Thats because it would be party suicide to bring back the draft and thats what it would take. The cost of equipping today is waaay up there and as the man said "No new taxes". This is a sore subject for me. Politics costing lives and nobody with the balls to make it happen.[/quote]

We didn't have the draft, and our force was double what it is today back during the late cold war . . . so the draft isn't the only way to increase the force size. Production and development cost would go down per unit if there is a steady need of armament consumption, because it is high now due to small prior demand, a smaller production base, and fewer items purchased (thus increasing the cost per item).

Take a look at the ship building industry . . . when you have only three major producers, some under the same company, that means that they can get away with charging significantly more, because you can't go elsewhere to make the same quality and type of item.

It will cost money to fund a larger armed forces, that is without a question . . . but as they say "If you buy in bulk, you'll save money. Yayyyy!"

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by JALU3

[. . . but as they say "If you buy in bulk, you'll save money.

Thats what EB keeps telling the the navy (seriously). Month or so back EB said they could drop the price so many millions per sub added to the contract. Can't remember how much but it made me whistle.