3 ms·
The argument that always comes up is that those flights are necessary because they're flight time required for training and public events are recruiting tools s
by pfranz 6y ago
The argument that always comes up is that those flights are necessary because they're flight time required for training and public events are recruiting tools since we have a volunteer force.
However, reducing the number of pilots/planes mean fewer training missions and reducing the military headcount reduces the need for recruitment.
- Godel_unicode 6y agoNow you're moving the goal posts. Whether paying for flyovers out of the training budget makes sense is orthogonal to how big a military we should have.
- pfranz 6y agoIf flyovers come out of training budgets it's not a cut. The whole premise was reducing unnecessary programs. That has a clear knock-on effect of reducing the need for headcount and recruiting. I'm not a fan of constant military displays at sporting events, but the argument is usually shut down very quickly as required flight-time and as recruitment. I was trying to turn that into a more productive direction.