Why the Thunderbirds & Blue Angels don't fly 5th Gen Fighters

[@aerospacehorizons]

Hi Everyone! Pinning a comment here with some common themes I’ve had pointed out in the comments to hopefully head them off before you leave another comment along these same lines. 😂 Thanks for watching - I really appreciate everyone taking the time to comment and correct what I got wrong! - I got my numbers/wording a little mixed up when it comes to new aircraft cost. Brand new F-16 and F-18s approach the cost of an F-35. The point remains though that new F-35s are kinda the only option right now, vs plentiful old/used 4th gen fighters which are an order of magnitude less expensive. The maintenance costs also remain lower for 4th gen vs 5th gen. - Re: $400k helmets - it looks like the cost to refit an existing helmet for a new pilot is not the full $400k. I do not have the numbers offhand but that is something to consider. However, it is NOT a given that fleet pilots coming onto the teams would have these helmets already. The vast majority of pilots in the services are still 4th gen pilots, and the teams do not select based on aircraft proficiency. The previous Thunderbird leader was an F-15 pilot. All USMC pilots coming onto the Blue Angels must learn to fly the Super Hornet as the Marines don’t fly it. To limit their selection to just F-35 pilots would cut out an overwhelming amount of great talent, and just wouldn’t happen. In a few decades, having an F-35 helmet made for you will be much more common, but right now, it’s not a given. - The custom software that the Blue Angels have on their F-18s is purely for basic stuff like marking show center to help them with the timings of their maneuvers. They DO NOT override the FCS and safety systems in place on the jet. The pilots DO have it written into the SOPs for the team to watch out for weird quirks that the Blues hit that the jet wasn’t designed around. Former Blues pilot Frank Weisser did a great interview on the Blue Angels Phantoms channel where he went into this in more detail. - Israel, along with a few other countries, have apparently expressed demand for a 2 seat F-35. It’s not out of the realm of possibility they will exist at some point, but there are no firm plans at this time.

[@AeroBlocks]

No reply’s yet

[@tango_uniform]

The super hornet flown by the Blue Angels does not have inverted fuel pumps.

[@aerospacehorizons]

@@tango_uniform they do. At least according to the BA Super Hornet cockpit tour from Cary Rickoff from a few years ago. KZbin won’t let me put links in comments so you’ll have to search for it… but he clearly shows off the switch and talks about the upgraded pumps.

[@swiftusmaximus5651]

More like 120-130 in service. Hurricane Mike at Tyndall AFB and various accidents have taken out almost 3 dozen aircraft. Nearly another 2 dozen roughly have been''retired'' and are being used as parts. The Aircraft is 30 years old and they were worried about tech espionage so much of what built F22 parts were destroyed.

[@X862go]

To many computers?

[@ThinWhiteAxe]

So what I'm hearing is the fourth generation jets were the perfect balance between giving the pilots more toys to show off, while also relying on the pilots' skill to show off.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Yeah definitely. The f-35 is extremely digital. Thanks for watching!

[@LRRPFco52]

F-16 and F/A-18 have always had a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces, initially with analog control laws (CLAWs), then later made with DFLCS (Digital Flight Control Systems) and appropriate Quad redundant computers. With DEEC and later FADEC, it made throttle response better, as well as overall engine management. Pilot doesn’t have to worry about moderating engine control inputs like on the F-14A, F-15A, and early F-16A engines that had all sorts of issues with compressor stalls, AB unstarts, and blades letting go. F-16 and Hornet pilots have never known what it’s like to have direct control over the surfaces in the Viper & Hornet. The FBW system has always scheduled those inputs and outputs, and they are much safer and maneuverable because of it. F-22A and F-35 series have even better DFLCS and CLAWs, with integrated FADEC. F-35s are fly-by-light, not FBW, so a new generation of enhanced control system architecture.

[@thinhnguyenduy4099]

I don’t know about it, but i think better tools in a very competent person should make that person accomplish more.

[@PeypaMikko-1842]

@@LRRPFco52 Well IIRC, T-45 and T-38 trainers have conventional controls, so F-16 pilots and F/A-18 pilots should know what it is like to have direct control over surfaces, since they learnt their basics in T-45 or T-38 training squadrons.

[@Loanshark753]

the first time I heard fly by wire I thought it was a highly outdated system of pulling steel control wire to move the control surfaces. Is that weird the name really does not seem like the best.

[@TrainerAQ]

Thunderbirds and Blue Angels flying 5th gen fighters: *Pushes the Air show button. Sits back and drinks coffee*

[@aneasteregg8171]

Hope they have a very secure lid on that coffee

[@matthewbartley2746]

​@@aneasteregg8171conveniently, the F35 isn't a great dog fighter. It's detractors won't stop bringing that up while also not grasping... dog fights haven't happened in decades.

[@Davie-jx4rh]

@@matthewbartley2746if I remember correctly it got upgraded to 9 Gs and has about the same turn rate as an f16 Still though, why dogfight when you don’t have to

[@JesseJames-kv7xc]

loooooooool, that's a good one.

[@Thornbloom]

​@@matthewbartley2746push-button warfare

[@aaronseet2738]

Back in the old days an F-117 casually lost its wing (due to four out of five bolts missing) during a demo flight and the amount of effort expended to secure the crash site and pieces was tremendous. If I were top brass no way i'd risk fielding an entire demo squadron with current-gen secret aircraft.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

Meanwhile, the Air Force flat out lost a F35 lol

[@TheAidanodian]

@@SilverStarHeggisistseveral F-35s are straight up sitting at the bottom of the ocean right now. Pretty sure oceanic water destroys the tech to a point where it’s not worth recovering.

[@kylemason6726]

@@SilverStarHeggisistthat was Navy

[@benc6690]

​@kylemason6726 Both. I believe Navy lost one off a carrier, Air Force had the one where the pilot ejected and the plane kept flying south until it crashed. The story of the search for the missing plane was headline news for a little bit.

[@h8GW]

@SilverStarHeggisist I don't know what's the purpose of this comment other than to downlow root for russia. Equipment losses is an unavoidable part of the military, no different than OP's mention of the F-117 loss. It's the loss RATE that's the important metric to measure competency.

[@SillyPuddy2012]

In this day and age and the economic reality we live in, we’re fortunate there are still demonstration teams at all to please the crowds.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Let’s hope they can continue for decades to come. Thanks for watching!

[@diGritz1]

Please the crowd? I guess but the primary reason they do this is for recruitment purposes. That's straight from the DOD. It's also why you will never see the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds flying together

[@SillyPuddy2012]

@@diGritz1 yes, please the crowds. It is widely known their intention is to entice people to join. But of the hundreds of thousands per year that they entertain, well, it’s simply entertainment.

[@aerospacehorizons]

@@diGritz1 the teams fly together often these days! They were together at Point Mugu last year, and will be together at the Blues’ homecoming show in November. They also train in El Centro for a week together every year. There’s footage of them flying in formation together in this video.

[@troyblackburn4522]

⁠​⁠@@diGritz1Absolutely correct that the purpose of the flight demonstration teams is for recruitment. With regards to never seeing the Blue Angles and Thunderbirds performing at the same show; although it’s unusual, it has has happened on three occasions, the most recent being the Point Mugu Airshow 18-19 March 2023 and they scheduled to perform together again in Pensacola 1-2 November 2024

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

I would like to make note that the F-35 is NOT 3-4 times higher than a comparable F-16 or F/A-18. The latest F-16V Block 70 is going for $70 million flyaway cost, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III is currently going for $67 million. By comparison, the F-35A lot 17 will average out to $79 million, and lots 15-17 averaged $82 million. You can compare the price with a jet from 30 years ago, but it wouldn’t do you any good, not to mention inflation skewing the numbers.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Good callout! Thanks! I was probably referencing incorrect or old numbers. The point remains though the ONLY option for an F35 is brand new vs the other jets which have far cheaper and more plentiful older options. Thanks for watching and clarifying numbers!

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

@@aerospacehorizons yes, indeed, and we’ll having a stock of F-16’s ready to use for at least another 30 years.

[@daveyjones5702]

@@jacobbaumgardner3406 use for what? air shows? after 30 years they will have become more obsolete then wood and fabric biplanes are right now. they are obsolete and outmatched by their russian and european competition today. the F-16 right now is at the stage the A-10 was at during irak 2; potentially devastating, IF you can protect it from air to air engagements. and i don't think you can. moreover one of the main disadvantages of such an old plane is that it needs a full length, high quality runway to take off from. even it's contemporary mig29 puts it to shame on this point. so where are they going to hide them? besides the F16 air frame is not going to stand up to another 30 years of use. there's a reason these things have a limited lifespan. right now half of the F-16s on paper are not even operational. they are just keeping them for their parts to keep the other half in the air.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

Thank you! All we ever hear are hater numbers for the F-35. It's sad how so many people do this.

[@PrograError]

@@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia As much as there's lots of hate, it's still an overt built aircraft that's very expensive for what's the defensive in nature doctrine of many countries. The required maintenance after a potential terror incident interdiction scramble, which is the most likely peacetime mission it would undertake, is higher than most 4th gen aircraft. IMO something like the KF-21 would have been perfect.

[@spdaltid]

As an ex team aerobatic team member from a different nation's Airforce ; I've always felt some envy to those teams that operate a front line fighter. At the same time, I've always considered the use of fighters instead of jet trainers as fabulous overkill. Of course, even if the piloting skills are similar in a training jet, bona-fide fighters have noise and presence --- you can never have too much thrust!

[@dwshank]

As someone who has to pay for these teams to pay for them to have frontline fighters, trainers would be just fine with me. :)

[@dizzleslaunsen2372]

@@dwshankyou aren’t lying for any of this just stop. Your taxes aren’t changing if they flew smaller jets so just stop.

[@dennist61]

​@dizzleslaunsen2372 you mean cheaper jets.... yes, good comment.

[@fivestringslinger]

Back in 2021 when the Blues first started flying the Super Hornet, thanks to sheer dumb luck, I got to see both teams perform together at the same show in New Century Kansas. I had been to previous shows and seen both teams before but to see them both at one venue back to back was a real treat. I love both teams, but if you forced me to pick a favorite, it would have to be the Blues. I do miss that characteristic "howl" that the legacy Hornets made though! More recently, my home airport where I work as an aircraft mechanic hosted an air show with the Blues as the headliner. Getting to watch them practice in the days leading up to that weekend's show was an even bigger treat.

[@aerospacehorizons]

I miss the howl of the legacy hornet so much. Thanks for watching!

[@jimsteinway695]

The Hornet was the loser as the YF17 to the F16. The Navy always gets the hand me downs. Because they get ships. So the Air Force gets the winners of not only the Aircraft but the Avionics. For the Embedded GPS INS, the Air Force got the Honeywell and the Navy got the Litton The F/A-18 was not even close to the performance of the F16, but it made up for it by not having the range.

[@wreksangel]

​@@jimsteinway695 hand me downs? Not really... How about the F14 Tomcat. Purpose built specifically for the navy to be the Phoenix carrying fleet interceptor.

[@jimsteinway695]

@@wreksangelthe F 14 wasn’t as good as the F15 . If you remember the F 15 set all kinds of speed and altitude records but they didn’t want to pay to upgrade the gear and wings . Remember the F14 flat spins in the 80’s ? So Grumman got the contract. Believe me I was a naval engineer for 30 years and I saw what we in Naval Aviation got. I wanted some of what the Air Force had. Your example may be a valid one but Grumman didn’t exactly make a ton of great aircraft. The A6 the F14 and that was it

[@wreksangel]

@jimsteinway695 oh, no... don't get me wrong, I did not mean to imply the F14 was the same caliber of fighter as the Eagle. I was just saying the F14 wasn't one of the air force rejects that the Navy said yes to. The F14 is a bit of a paradox. Some incredible abilities and was very capable, but had an acchilles heel (or two) with the flat spin and compressor stall issues, and started it's service life woefully underpowered until they were re-engined. The F15 is in a class all it's own among fourth Gen fighters. Unbeaten and absolutely feared by opponents for good reason. It's a gorgeous, sexy, and deadly bird worth every cent spent keeping it in the air. I think the greatest testament to how great of a plane it is, is the fact that they are now producing the new F15EX. Five decades on, and it's still one of the most deadly birds in service. I can't think of a single criticism. I am still impressed by it's durability and toughness... first thing that comes to mind is the Israeli Eagle that lost a wing in flight during training and STILL LANDED. That's unreal. Something that really shouldn't happen. I remember seeing the pilot say he couldn't see his right wing because of the cloud of fuel spraying out, and if he had realized the extent of the damage, he probably would have ejected. The fact that that plane managed to land would seem more like a tall tale if not for the video and picture evidence proving it. Absolutely magnificent jet.

[@budd1331]

The F16 and F18 are perfect for air shows. The F16 fly by wire is amazing Listening to Max Afterburner talking about the F16 makes it clear why its used for air shows.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Love Max’s channel! Thanks for watching!

[@sangwonpark8967]

I saw the F-22 doing acrobatics at an airshow once. It looked like a 3-story building flipping through the air and was the most terrifying thing I have ever seen. The sound was deafening, even compared to a 6-gun 155mm barrage. Even compared to seeing a claymore go off at 20m. Legitimately, the most impressive thing I've ever seen, but the cost may be too high

[@sangwonpark8967]

Perhaps later on, they could repair the airframes of damaged F-35s and leave out the electronics for an airshow version

[@rowdyriemer]

Over 10 years ago, back when I was taking classes at a local state college, one fellow student, an Air Force aircraft mechanic, told an interesting story. He was stationed at Tyndall Air Force Base, which is very close to this area. He said that one day, they had an F-22 on jack stands with the landing gear down to do .... maintenance or repairs or whatever - he didn't say specifically. Anyway, someone didn't switch off the breaker for the flight control computer, and since was measuring zero air speed and since it didn't detect weight on the landing gear, it decided that it was in a stall. So the control surfaces were flapping frantically as it tried to get itself out of it's perceived stall, causing the aircraft to teeter on the jack stands. It was a scary moment for he and his fellow airmen, but someone got to the breaker and switched it off before the aircraft fell.

[@barrymccockiner6641]

I think the Thunderbirds won't easily give up the F-16, if only for the in-air refueling ability that the T-7 doesn't have.

[@aerospacehorizons]

I had no idea about the refueling issue. That would be a big problem for them… 🤔

[@barrymccockiner6641]

@aerospacehorizons Yea, I remember when I was younger, hearing an interview with one of the Thunderbirds, first thing they said about the T-38 was that it made life tough stopping all the time

[@rogertrujillo7423]

I remember standing next to one of the Thunderbirds F-16's about 35 years ago and could hardly believe how small they were compared to the Blue Angels F/A-18 but size doesn't matter much. I enjoy both teams shows.

[@pacinpm2]

13:00 Polish president had to create special decree to allow new national markings on Polish F-35. We used to mark our planes with white-red checker board but apparently this will reduce stealthy features of the aircraft (not only radar but also infra-red). New markings will be the checker board in the shades of grey I believe.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

it’s not just Poland, others had to adjust making it tougher to identify countries with the simple roundels like the UK, France, and others…it would have been a huge uproar if the US had to change the star and stripes roundel

[@TheRunaway115]

Oh yeah, Japan did the same thing as far as I’m aware. They have a low-vis roundel as well as many other countries. As dull as that grey can be, I think it’s kinda neat to see that we all use the same colors on the same jet. A sort of symbol of unity if you wanna look at it from a more romantic angle.

[@richardfeldkamp1707]

The Snowbirds, (RCAF demonstration team) uses the CT-114 Tudor, a 1960's era trainer. Easy to maintain, low cost to fly, highly maneuverable and able to support an 11 aircraft (9 flying, 2 spares) squadron. They may now be the fastest, but are very nimble and put on a great show.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Love the Snowbirds!

[@quakethedoombringer]

I mean it just makes sense. The Snowbirds, Thunderbirds, Blue Angels all serve the same purpose (recruitment and entertainment). Canada doesn't have Uncle Sam's budget (it's a miracle that RCAF even manages to afford F 35) so why not use a dirt cheap aircraft that are also super maneuverable for these types of shows

[@cap_eath]

The Snowbirds will also visit smaller shows. They are nothing like the Blue Angels though. But I just always figured they were cheaper book

[@michaelbosisto6259]

They are awesome and I really like the red arrows.. just jammed packed with exciting maneuvers

[@JesseJames-wj8ft]

Snowbirds blow, crowds often start streaming out when they start taxiing. I understand canada works with what it has, which is not much, and will never be able to afford an F-18 demo team. The F-18's they are flying are some of the oldest in the air, I believe they were purchased from Australia once they got rid of theirs for the F-35. Snowbirds obviously do some top notch formation work but most people, by and large, want to see something fast, mean and loud, and even 9 Tudors together are none of the above.

[@shubinternet]

The other reason we won’t see them on the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels is that the aircraft are still very highly classified, and airshow planes need to be something that can be seen up close and personal by the public. So, you would never want these things to be on public display.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Good call out! Thanks for watching!

[@Pretagonist]

I was at an air show in Sweden last week that had some Norwegian f35a:s on public display. You could get fairly close and take as many pictures as you wanted to. Sadly there were no flight demonstration of the f35. I'm guessing we will get f35s on these teams at some point but likely many years away.

[@camojoe83]

Yeah that doesn't have anything to do with it.

[@BetterThanLifeProd]

@@shubinternet You're never allowed all that close to the Blue Angel's planes, and I live in Pensacola, Florida, where they fly over my house twice a week, weather permitting and you can meet the team after practise each week.

[@jpotter2086]

First saw a Raptor at an air show, Altus, OK, on the tarmac, in 2006. It was one of the few planes that had a "no touch" rope line around it, but you could get plenty close, take all the photos you want from 6ft away.

[@tracker1265]

The F22 is NOT used because of the insane costs of the aircraft and the limited number of the aircraft that are available. The F22 can demonstrate the advanced capabilities in single aircraft demonstrations at airshows.

[@RPM_MEDIA7]

Razz Larson and he definitely gives that jet a workout in his demos

[@AMPS1]

Without the radar absorbent coating it would be cheaper but it's still very high.

[@hrk9209]

i see an f22 every airshow here in anchorage ak

[@keithrobertson2401]

I always marvel at how small the production of each generation of fighters was. F16 which they made a lot of is still like 4800 globally. They are just well taken care of and maintained. Cool video.

[@matthewnewnham-runner-writer]

Excellent video - thanks @aerospacehorizons. As a former USAF fighter pilot, I agree with everything you've noted. Incidentally, I was just starting Fighter Lead-In training at Holloman AFB when the Thunderbirds had their tragic 4-ship crash in Jan '82. (As you know, that ushered in the move from T-38s to F-16s.)

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks your service and for watching!

[@raiderkwood]

I know F-16s are better suited for these shows, but I would love to see just one show of the USAF using F-15s, now that would be some serious thunder!

[@eac1235]

Well strangely enough 6 F 16s running up and taking off with full afterburner is actually louder than 6 F 15s. Seriously the Thunderbirds make the Blue Angels seem meek and quiet. F 15 is loud but the F 16 is annoyingly loud.

[@mishkamcivor409]

I think its also worth mentioning that generally (in the west at least) the design paradigm between 4th and 5th generation jets has shifted significantly, manoverability and air superiority have been put asside in favor of standoff distance and survivability and what that ultimately means is that the newer jets (with the exception of the F22) are not as manouverable and aerobatic as the older jets, they just wouldn't be as fun to watch at an airshow

[@LRRPFco52]

F-35 can do several things the F-16 can’t for aerobatics, not that it really matters. Once you combat-configure an F-16, it isn’t anywhere near as maneuverable. The F-35 makes the F-16 sound like a mediocre fighter, and I remember how thunderous the F-16 sounded when it debuted in the 1970s. We later ended up on the F-16 CTF, so I grew up with it from 1974-present basically. F-35 is something else when you hear over 40,000lbs of thrust from that engine. Feels more like something sci-fi.

[@cruisinguy6024]

From interviews I’ve seen the Angels *loved* the A-4s and were much happier to operate them than the F-4s.

[@arleighburke9095]

‘Blues’ - not ‘Angels’

[@evanfinch4987]

Not what I gathered from watching lots of interviews.

[@codymoe4986]

@@arleighburke9095 Mind your business...they can call them "Blue Man Group" if they want...I prefer "Soaring Smurfs"...

[@jaybee9269]

The Blue Angels F-4s were gorgeous.

[@thereyougoagain1280]

Honestly I think it kind of reflects the changing roles of fighters, as unmanned wingman programs progress, air to air missiles become increasingly long ranged, and fighters tend more and more towards strike missions leaving enemy aircraft to air defenses, the days of dogfighting, and therefore the importance of extreme maneuverability, are coming to a close. The reality of the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds is that their purpose is to promote awareness of the capabilities of the military for recruitment and attracting greater budgets. Once they no longer reflect the actual mission or equipment of the Air Force and Navy, they will no longer be needed. Aerobatic teams for marketing and promotion of the military will likely remain for a long time to come because they aren’t all that expensive given how effective they are, but flying them in actual fighters will just as likely last as long as the airframes of the current fighters used.

[@quakethedoombringer]

Aerial acrobatic teams will probably still be around even during the drone age. It will just be 1 or 2 pilots in a "mothership" jet controlling super maneuverable UAVs around them instead of a full manned team

[@MyHouseOnTheMoon]

I broke my back and ended my path during flight school at 10.5 months out of 12 months. I was hoping for F-15s, but since that was unlikely based on my class standing (about 50th oercentile, we had some HIGH SPEED dudes with tons of prior flight experience), I was likely headed for the Bone (B-1). I love these aircraft! I got to watch the Blue Angels practice every Tuesday and Wednesday during flight school at NAS Pensacola. My favorite day ever was watching them practice while floating in the middle of Pensacola Bay during the Water Survival portion of SERE, when they dropped us into the water and expected us to self inflate our gear and just survive for 3 hours. It was lovely :)

[@perdedor3571]

In 2012 I was stationed at Langley. The Thunderbirds would come to Langley. They'd close the aerodrome and practice. At one point the plan was to swap them over to 22's. I remember they'd fly past the Ryan center because there's a huge parking lot. They'd pass close enough to make a bunch of car alarms go off.

[@johnosbourn4312]

No, the Thunderbirds started flying the F-16 in 1983, their 1982 season was canceled after a tragic accident that killed the Diamond pilots, and destroyed the four T-38s, which was the aircraft type they were flying that year. The team had to be reformed after cries went out to disband them following that crash.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Whoops! I guess I didn’t look it up hard enough. 😂 Thanks for the catch (and for watching)!

[@LRRPFco52]

After the big loss of airframes and life on 18JAN, 1982, the Thunderbirds asked former team members to return and begin training in the F-16A/B Block 15 Vipers, the first of which arrived in June of 1982 to Nellis in colors. They built the team up from summer of 1982 through 1983, when they started flying demos again for the public. I know because we saw them perform in T-38As in 1979 before we left for DLI, then West Germany, and when we got back to Edwards AFB in late 1982. We then saw them in the airshow season of 1983 in F-16As, which was an awesome show. So yes, they did start flying the F-16A/B in 1982.

[@jackielinde7568]

I GOT TO SEE THE TRICOLORE! My dad was stationed in Aviano AFB in the early 80's, and they performed at one of the air shows the base hosted. I was too young to know (and remember) what they flew back then.

[@TukaihaHithlec]

Several countries have made requests for modified F-35s and Lockheed Martin is accommodating some. Norway wanted drag chutes for landing on icy runways, Canada wanted F-35Cs with fixed wings for longer patrols, and Israel wants two-seater versions. All three desires are shared by other countries and some are already answered, and Israel has already been particularly catered to so two-seater F-35s doesn’t seem that farfetched. All that said, I don’t expect either team to adopt F-35s any time soon if ever, and never the F-22.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard that. Will need to look more into that. Thanks for the flag (and for watching)!

[@ralphyboy3636]

I was at an airshow in lacrosse Wisconsin. The blue angels were there and they had 2 F22s. The blue angels were ok. But the F22 WAS AWESOME!!! it took 4 F18s to make the same noise as 1 F22. We met the angels and the crew after the show. First I talked to the supply lady. I told her you basically work for the same company. Fill out the right forms and requisition some F22s. Then I worked my way down the line to the boss (pilot #1) and told him what I told her. He looked intrigued but assured me that wouldn't happen. 😢

[@deathstrike]

As somebody who has worked in the field of stealth aircraft, the only way an F-35 could even be remotely used for the Thunderbirds would be to not have any of its stealth technology installed at the start. If the fighter had to be returned to duty? The sheer number of hours in depot, the testing needed after installation of all of its components would not only be totally cost ineffective, but it would also not be the "same" as a plane leaving with all its components from the factory. Apologies for sounding vague, but as the video presenter said, this is highly classified tech. It's better to have it all installed when the plane leaves, than attempt to install it later. As for using the T-7 Redhawk, that may not be an option as well due to the newness of this design, and the fact it also can serve as a light fighter as well. It is also fairly expensive until the Air Force can provide a sufficient number, thus lowering the unit cost of each aircraft. As a Frontline aviation mechanic, if it became too expensive to maintain the F-16 aircraft that the Thunderbirds use, an attractive option would be a "rollback" to the old, venerable T-38 trainer. This plane is a variant of the beloved F-5E Tiger Fighter and with a very well established track record, lots of parts, and quite nimbe and maneuverable, it may serve to continue the Thunderbirds as a lower cost option, despite it being phased out in favor of the T-7 Redhawk.

[@deathstrike]

Edit: As an outlier, the T-38 Talon was used by the Thunderbirds from 1974 to 1981. With more efficient turbofan engines and modern electronics, this aircraft could see a genuine reuse and repurpose as a "Flight Demonstration" aircraft. This would show the public the tactics and maneuvers pilots are trained to utilize, and basically keep the crowds proud of their military.

[@Zorbino88]

I'm a frequent fan of the Blue Angels over SF airshow, was just there on Sunday for the 4th year in a row, this video was incredibly informative as to the what, why and how that goes in to the US' aircraft deemed operational and confidential, or what's just for show and training. I feel like I'm going down a big rabbit hole that I don't want to end. Thank you for the video and the knowledge!

[@skenzyme81]

6:08 Painting isn't necessary anymore. For aircraft doing sub-transonic maneuvers, a wrap over the RAM paint is sufficient.

[@anthonykaiser974]

Good point

[@serioustoday]

The spectacle is the speed, the sound, the power, the elegance.

[@Phalanx11]

I was in the USAF and never saw a plane. I was in Italy and NSA....we called it the 'Chairforce'.

[@mrandrossguy9871]

😢

[@Iamshields632]

We just had the large Wings of Houston air show about a month or so ago and the Blue Angels and thunderbirds were here. I had never seen an F18. So It was very cool to see them flying over my place during the show for the week. Rumbled the whole place on some of their group low passes. Just fascinating to watch.

[@bmezay2003]

Burner 360 would slap with the F-35 T-birds

[@aerospacehorizons]

Sure would! Thanks for watching!

[@belacickekl7579]

Slap your eardrums?

[@shootsnscores-cja]

Great video, all valid points. I had previously thought that it was just a cost issue as I had heard that the planes flown by the Angels and T-Birds were "the old ones" of that generation. Interesting to hear about the roles of tech and warfare readiness that I hadn't considered.

[@tiburd7]

The Australian aerobatic display team (the Roulettes) flies turboprops to keep their costs down.

[@bodazaphfa]

You are absolutely correct when you were talking about how much time and cost it would be to “repaint” an F-22 or an F-35 as compared to to a legacy or even a super. The legacy Hornet had a certain amount or low observable material for radar absorption;however, the super has it all over and it’s very time and money consuming when you remove it for maintenance in order to remove doors ( panels ), especially at the depot level. With that in mind, the 22 and the 35 are ABSOLUTELY MORE time and money consuming due to the proper processes that have to be completed in order to maintain that low radar cross-section. To just remove one panel for maintenance includes a ridiculous about of work to reinstall it with regard to the 22 and 35. As far as the super goes, we use MIL-PRF-2202 and a gold flaked R.A.M. ( radar absorption material ). I’ll take the 18 maintenance ANY DAY over the 22 and / or the 35. You just don’t prime and paint these things. There is an excruciating amount of maintenance that goes into it before you can even consider doing that;however, once an old jet gets sent to the Angels, we don’t care so much about radar cross-sectioning. We just do the smoke mod and send them on their way.

[@stevenschmidt]

The F-16 looks way cooler than the F-35, honestly haha.

[@Castragroup]

No

[@Justanotherconsumer]

To be fair, Fat Amy is a little CHONK. The design allowing the space for the VTOL version had some compromises.

[@bradleyrex2968]

Great video. I was itching to comment on transitioning to trainers proving my brilliance... and then you covered it.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks for watching!

[@timmyj2366]

I’d love to see the Thunderbirds switch to F-15’s. Then their show would easily top the Blue Angels.

[@michaelburke9137]

That would be awesome

[@arleighburke9095]

Why would it easily top the Blue Angels?

[@jdean2131]

Uhhh No….Air Force flys at consistently higher altitudes than Blues. Both are first rate….

[@johndavolta3124]

Thunderbirds already top the Blue Angels

[@joneill63]

@@johndavolta3124 hardly - both are great, but the Blues fly much tighter formations!

[@smalltime0]

7:30 There was a case in Australia of a RAAF F-35 doing a 'unauthorized manoeuvre' over a hiking trail where it is believed the jet's computer took control part way as part of it's ground avoidance suite.

[@gibbo_303]

the F-35 might be used in these display teams in 40 years when they are old and there are hundreds being retired at a time

[@LRRPFco52]

F-16 assembly line is still open, cranking out Block 70s and 72s now. There are around 970 of them in the active USAF right now as well. The new ones are all for Foreign Military Sales orders of course.

[@quakethedoombringer]

@@LRRPFco52funny how countries like Greece and Bulgaria will be using F 16 that are even more technologically advanced than their US counterparts

[@LRRPFco52]

@@quakethedoombringer Same thing happened with the F-4F, but the US was divested of F-4Es by then and only operated F-4Gs in the end for Wild Weasel. The thing is, I haven't seen any other F-16C/D Block 52 foreign operator running with HTS pods for D/SEAD, so the US doesn't just hand over everything. 613 late Block USAF Vipers have gone through CCIP I & II and now PoBIT with AESA Radars, so those are some of the most advanced Vipers in operational service now. F-16E/F Block 60 in UAE service is its own thing, much different bird than all the others. Block 70 won't even have the features those do when it comes to LO and propulsion.

[@saury7124]

Nah, the F-35s being retired will be sold to Canada because we can't get our act together on any military procurement and will be forced to keep the F-35s longer while bureaucrats play political football to decide which next gen aircraft to get. We had to buy Australia's legacy Hornets years ago for this reason.

[@litrick5471]

Problem is retired means all the various vendors of parts will stop making parts, making it much much more difficult to maintain.

[@StsFiveOneLima]

Excellent video. I've heard this question many times, and you had more answers to it than I ever did.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks for the kind words and for watching! Much appreciated!

[@rabbiboazmarmon7723]

The one point on which I would quibble is the helmets. One would think that if the air services were to adopt the F-35 as a demonstration airframe, most of the pilots would then be drawn from those with F-35 experience, which in turn would mean most would bring helmets from their line duties. There would be some expense whenever the teams chose a pilot without F-35 experience, but that would likely not be close to needing to provide a new helmet to each team pilot, as you described. That said, it’s not going to happen in the foreseeable future, or quite likely ever, for all the other reasons brought up.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Yeah, I actually thought about this after I recorded the video but before posting. I decided to leave it in, mostly because at this point in time the vast majority of candidates that these teams would consider will be 4th Gen pilots, and would need a helmet made for them. In a decade or two that might not be the case, and every pilot will be an F-35 pilot and have their own helmet… but we’re no where close to that point yet. Thanks for watching!

[@Ace-rp7vr]

You crushed my dreams 😢 the F35 would look so good in thunder bird colors

[@seancrandall1291]

TL;DR version: Fat Amy ain't a dog fighter. She's a big computer with wings that serves as a missile platform for your AWACS.

[@treyaldridge1757]

Eh, I think a lot of people forget that she's a strike fighter, not an air superiority fighter. She can be the forward missile launcher/controller, but really she's there so that while the raptor does that, there can be 100 F-35s to launch hundreds of air to ground missiles to strategically dismantle an enemy's air defenses, comms arrays, and any other known military targets.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Still holds her own against the F-16 even in a dogfight, so not quite as extreme as that. NGAD might be more of that problem. Dogfighting is a bit like bayonets on rifles - they might still train on it, but it’s not what matters anymore.

[@Ridingthewaves305]

I’m glad they still fly the F18 superhornets they are such incredible aircraft

[@frankleespeaking9519]

Next up will probably be the T7 Red hawk trainer

[@robbnutter4665]

Always wondered, but now it makes perfect sense. Thanks!

[@kenchen704]

2:30 this is absolutely on point: you can’t have 6 fifth gen fighters doing post-stall maneuvers in formation safely and consistently… so a fifth gen fighter demo squad won’t be flying any differently as a squad of F16s F18s anyway…

[@Jerry74]

To be honest, it is awesome to see the F-22 and F-35 at an airshow.

[@DroidzandBrix]

On the topic of the Raptor, it’s to my knowledge Lockheed Martin kept the tooling used for production, just in case the Air Force wanted more. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong

[@ninjalectualx]

You're wrong. The tooling was famously destroyed

[@zackallen76]

One time I saw the Thunderbirds and I talked with one of the crew. I mentioned that I've only known the Thunderbirds and I asked how many more years before the F-16 is replaced. He really gave it a hard thought and we both brainstormed thoughts on what would be needed in an aircraft for performances. Eventually we said maybe in 20 years.. that was over 15 years ago and there is nothing seen in the Air Force to do that yet. LOL

[@user-jpwiremans1575]

Excellent video great job of looking way into the 2050's

[@aerospacehorizons]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@DeanOliver1964]

I love the F-16s as the Thunderbirds but my favorites are still the F-100 and the T-38. I was never too thrilled with the use of the F-4s.

[@Emlizardo]

Thank you for saying "fighting terrorism" rather than "the war on terror."

[@TheSnookman]

More like fighting radical Islam.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

@@TheSnookmanit’s about as close to Islam as Trumpism is to Christianity - it uses the words and the rhetoric but the actual practice is night and day.

[@andrewdanielson1115]

I appreciate your delivery. 👏

[@ryan_got_a_camera]

The patrouille suisse still uses the F-5E Tiger II, but sadly not for so long anymore cuz we are phasing them out till next year and our F-18C are to few for an entire team

[@brutusmuerto]

Great points, great presentation. Thank you!

[@philoshaughnessy906]

"Fly them until the wings fall off." You have to hope this happems when the plane is on the ground.

[@aerospacehorizons]

😂

[@christopherjustice4233]

A very informative video. Thank you!

[@BritishBeachcomber]

The Red Arrows, arguably the best, most famous air display team in the world, still fly 50 year old BAE Hawk T1 trainer jets. Small but highly maneuverable, good power to weight ratio.

[@michaelbosisto6259]

They put in so many exciting maneuvers within the airshow “box”. I feel like fighter jet demos are better when solo for that raw jet acceleration sound. However they have very little time in the box.

[@Jdatt13]

Awesome and very informative! Thank you!

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks for watching!

[@FlightSimHistorian]

While the vast majority of military aerobatic teams that operate jet aircraft use trainers, there are a few that are known to operate 4th Gen fighters. Singapore Air Force "Black Knights" demo team currently operate the F-16. Chinese Air Force "August 1st" aerobatic team operate the Chengdu J-10. The Russian Air Force has the Swifts and the Knights, flying the MiG-29 and Su-30/35 respectively. Good video, by the way!

[@aerospacehorizons]

Good call outs! The US teams seem to be unique in the western countries in flying fighters. Thanks for watching!

[@Ionee-q4f]

i really wish we could get an f-35 full aerobatic team, seeing the f-35a last year was absolutely stunning, wonderful looking aircraft. Even cooler the viper demo team was there that year too so there was a direct comparison in performance between 4th and 5th gen aircraft.

[@tony9146]

AF Thunderbirds should replace the F-16s with a squadron of B-52s

[@DJTourniquet]

Buff is forever

[@556m4]

New sub. Great video. Very informative and I agree with a lot of the opinions you have. Also I like your delivery and your presence is very calming.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Ha! Glad you enjoyed. Do I need to get into military aviation ASMR? 😂 Thanks for watching!

[@556m4]

@@aerospacehorizons It’s funny you should say that. There’s a channel of a Rafale carrier pilot that puts video of them flying in formation and getting launched with calming “chill out” music and the videos have millions of views so maybe there’s a niche for it ?

[@BakerStudiosIndy]

Using Fat Amy in an air show would be hilarious. I suspect we're going to find the F22 Raptors we have quite useful as events unfold. The venerable F15 would be like opening an Amazon package with 500 pounds of C4. That pretty much leaves the Viper and the Super Hornet as practical options.

[@forzaelite1248]

It's had a unique airshow since 2017

[@ravenwing199]

The F-35 has been more agile than every fighter but the F-22 for years now. Early F-35s were more or less prototypes for a couple years. Talk to a pilot if you get a chance the F-35 is very agile.

[@kevindondrea144]

Its exactly as I thought. I did like subscribe and share.

[@Crimson_Hawk_01]

The most amazing thing is in 2024 no one can touch a F-22 and Poland wants to buy them.

[@Nimbus1701]

I'd love to see them fly the YF-23. It would be so neat to see a few handfuls of them built and maintained specifically for something like this. I just like the overall design of that plane and would be really neat to see a group of them in a tight formation, especially since there were only two of them built during the ATF program. It will never happen, but would still be cool to see some built and never have all the super upgraded stuff the F-22 and F-35 has.

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

I saw the Marine and Air Force F35 at Seafair Seattle along with the blues. The hourly cost is the reason. $70k an hour for F35 vs $30k max for the F-18 Super. I would love to see the Blues fly an F16 in their routine. Single engine hourly saving and the balance of the F16 would be interesting.

[@forzaelite1248]

Hourly cost for the -A was around $35k in 2022 in a GAO sustainment report (couldnt find the number off the bat). The Super was around the same at $31k, its not as big a difference as most think. The Angels stick to naval aircraft as do the TBirds; we might just have to wait a bit for newer aircraft models to surface, though with all the unmanned stuf planned....

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

@@forzaelite1248 it’s true. This maybe it. I go and watch them for 2 weeks in El Centro. I try not to do the math.

[@LRRPFco52]

F-35A is the most expensive to fly at around $18,000/hr. F-35B and C are ~$16,000/hr. I'll look up the exact figures down to the dollar, but it's nothing like what the tards at GAO report.

[@forzaelite1248]

@@LRRPFco52 You might be looking for the reimbursement cost paper, don't remember where it is but it's out there somewhere

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

@@LRRPFco52 No way. You might be talking fuel. When they talk about total costs it’s way over $50k.

[@LokiDWolf]

What a great video! You gave me info that I never thought about but now I'm glad I know. I've taken photos at a lot of air shows over the years. And knowing this about all these jets really is fascinating to me. So, thank you very much for taking the time to give us more insight. Great work! Regarding Top Gun: Maverick, though they claimed little to no CGI was used that was just a lie. It was MOSTLY used. Even the jets they flew (which some weren't even actually there flying) are fake. It's a great movie. I've been fan of the original since it came out. And think it's one of the best openings to a movie, ever! But, the lies weren't necessary. Almost every movie creators that say no CGI are basically lying. It's as if CGI is taboo or something. LOL

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks for the comment! Much appreciated. I see you’ve also seen the “No CGI is really just invisible CGI” series! It’s a great set of videos, and I’m glad he called it out. I love TGM too but they didn’t need to throw all the talented VFX artists under the bus in the marketing like that… and try to lie to make it look like Cruise flew an F-18. Thanks for watching!

[@LokiDWolf]

@@aerospacehorizons YES!!!! He killed it with those videos. Again, not sure why Hollywood is so scared to say they used it. It's nearly impossible to do a lot of things in these movies. It seems so weird. Like they think telling people the sky is green we'll think that. LOL And yes, ALL THAT WORK is just ignored. I mean, that's so horrible! Looking forward to more vids. You're "new" to the scene. But, you have a great beginning! SUB!!!

[@aerospacehorizons]

@@LokiDWolf Thank you! The kind words are much appreciated. If you can’t tell I love movies and filmmaking too, so maybe I can find ways to cross that stuff over into the channel as well. Stay tuned!

[@XCimenaticGaming]

Based on certain articles and news I've seen what the navy is working on next is the F/A-XX program that would fly alongside the F-35 as a complimentary aircraft as they call it to replace the super hornet anywhere from the 2030s-2040s or beyond. The F/A-XX looks okay for a fighter itself but it's nowhere near the F/A-18 super hornet so hopefully those would stick along more as they were a huge part of my childhood as I've been seeing hornets a lot at air shows so glad to hear the navy has lots of spare parts and items to maintain this jet.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Yeah the Super Hornet will be with the Blues for a looooong time. Thanks for watching!

[@AzovAzza]

This is a great video and it’s something that has been in the back of my mind lately. I’d been wondering what both flight demo teams would do as far as F-35’s. My CONCERN is that you might be HEAVILY misinformed on how much surgical scalpels cost. Haha, cheers! Thanks for the great video. 😎

[@aerospacehorizons]

🤣🤣🤣 thanks for watching!

[@gamingmoth4542]

Maybe someone could make a “show model” F-22 or F-35 which only has the base model for the aircraft without all the incredibly expensive tech. I mean, I’d think that watching an F-22 or F-35 doing cool tricks would be breathtaking.

[@Hummerbird99]

The already have the F-22 and F-35 at airshows, just not part of teams like the Blue Angles.

[@JesseJames-wj8ft]

Pointed out the obvious, but well done. I'm old enough to remember Blue Angel Phantoms and what a kick those things were, we used to watch many shows from the edge of a forest and you'd get very little warning when they were about to rip right over your head, some kids climbed trees for a better view of the airfield and were knocked right to the ground by the Phantoms. Seems like they have been using F-18s forever and I long ago came to the same conclusions as you why we won't see any change in the foreseeable future ,, But I got no complaints, 18's are nice and loud and fast. Tbirds could conceivably step up their game going to F-15's, quite a few surplus C's but thats not likely to happen, and really not necessary, 16's are a hot little jet and one of the most successful fighters in history.

[@Not_so_greatScott]

And let’s be real, nothing looks as good as the F-16. The most aesthetically pleasing fighter design ever.

[@aerospacehorizons]

The F-14 would like a word. 😂 But realistically any 4th gen jet looks better than the F-35.

[@Not_so_greatScott]

@@aerospacehorizons yeah, I agree. I love all those fighters! I have a soft spot for the F-16 since I built a display model kit of the Thunderbirds when I was young.

[@afridgetoofar1818]

F-4 Phantom looked pretty cool too.

[@stephenrosenfelder4452]

I know we are only talking about jets, tho not stated. However, the P-51 would like a shout-out!

[@seancrandall1291]

I guess you've never seen an F-14, the 70s muscle car of fighter aircraft. But F-16 is a solid second.

[@ronlucock3702]

"Software to over-ride fly by wire safety protocols".... hmm, what could possibly go wrong? Good video. Cheers from Australia. Here, our air force demonstration team uses the PC-21 turboprop trainer. Half the spped & different sound altogether.

[@topomusicale5580]

No different than saying you are going to have a driving demonstration and disabling the newer systems put in cars to avoid collisions by auto-braking. What these guys do has always been risky, but using an aircraft that may ignore the pilot's input because it doesn't think what they are doing is safe would only add risk for this kind of flying. I've never had an opportunity to watch the Australian air demonstration team, think I'll look them up on-line right now. Cheers.

[@ronlucock3702]

@@topomusicale5580 Cheers mate. They're called "The Roulettes"

[@DanielGomez-gw4kt]

To be honest and to tell you the truth, I had fear of both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels flying the F-35a and the F-35c. Because I love the Thunderbirds flying the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and because they're called the Thunderbirds. The Fighting Falcon from the F-16 is an exceptional imperfect combination for the Thunderbirds, and also a representation of the theme and the symbol of the Thunderbirds. Because in the middle of the logo or emblem whatever you want to call it let's say the name Thunderbirds, you could see the bird symbol. And it is shaped like a type of exotic bird, an eagle, a falcon or a hawk. So I imagine the Thunderbirds using the theme of a falcon as part of their team, in the F-16 carries the name Fighting Falcon. And that is a perfect theme and choice for the Thunderbirds. And of course the Thunderbirds were named after a native American legend, according to the ancient stories from native americans. Some of them say that the Thunderbird is a giant bird that swoops down from the sky, grabbing animals and taking them to their nests to eat them. Animals like a mountain lion, a bobcat, and other animals from from the desert mountains and the desert. Some of those native Americans told stories that the Thunderbird is a giant predator, and other native Americans told stories about the thunderbird creating lightning and thunder buy natural powers from its wings. So that way the bird can stop a war that could occur between native Americans and another group of whoever or whatever, and that way the Thunderbird can show some peace and that everybody can get along in both sides. And so when the team was formed in the United States Air Force since 1953, the name was perfect for the team and became an ideal symbol for the jets. Because around the same time it was the beginning of the jet age for the US military, and the name became an international mission of Goodwill represented by the United States Air Force. And so that's why I always want the Thunderbirds to fly the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the truth is the Thunderbirds won't be the same without the F-16. And the Thunderbirds won't be the Thunderbirds without the F-16. And the team will be nothing without the F-16. For the Blue Angels, I really grew up with the team when they used to fly the original F-18 hornet. And it what is a lightweight fighter attack for the navy, and very light and very maneuverable to fly for the Blue Angels. In 1986 or 1987 it was a good thing they chose that lightweight aircraft to replace the A-4 Skyhawk, which the team flew previously. And then when I found out that either in 2016 or 2019 when the Navy decided to retire the original F-18 hornet and completely replaced by the FA-18 super hornet, I had a feeling if the Blue Angels were going to fly and use that aircraft. And then I suddenly realized that the super hornet was a little larger then the original hornet, so I had fear that it would be difficult for the pilots to fly the super hornet for the Blue Angels. So I really hoped that if they would take off all of the weapons from all nine super hornets, that they will be more lighter for the blue angels to fly they're maneuvers. It's really represent the United States Navy of today. And just like when the super hornet became the star airplane for top gun maverick. And so when I found out that 2020 was going to be the final year for the original hornet to be used by the blue angels, I was excited to see them fly the super hornet. And now I'm used to the Blue Angels flying the super hornet, because that's the aircraft of today for the navy. And I really believe the super hornet is good enough for the blue angels. And without that aircraft, the Blue Angels would be nothing. So I really don't want to see the F-35C being flown by the blue angels. I love the Thunderbirds with the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the Blue Angels with the FA-18 super hornet. And that's how I want it, because those planes that those two teams fly at airshows and so forth those planes are my number one favorite fighter jets from the United States military

[@SparklySpencer]

4:47 Yeah! Recruitment means modern, in service, aircraft...

[@cp4512]

Maybe it just because they’re so much cheaper?

[@C25-150]

I have to agree that trainers will probably take over although if I was still a 17yr old, I’d rather see what I could end up flying into combat vs what I’d be training in

[@redneckcoder]

The F-35 really feels like a case of "how many contractors in how many states can we cram into this thing to get approval from senators".

[@sarkaranish]

always has been. the military was always just a jobs program in disguise.

[@JimOHalloran]

Or to put it a different way "If we're only going to build one plane (in a few variants) for us and our allies for the next 30 years, can we spread the money across the entire defence industry and keep all those companies alive?"

[@alexgallagher4594]

I too willingly spread reformer propaganda that Russia promotes

[@redneckcoder]

@@alexgallagher4594 what does the protestant reformation have to do with the F-35?

[@treyaldridge1757]

​@@redneckcoderreformers are a self named group within the military (many are actually military consultants) who, ironically, want to reform the military by going back to the way of the past. Building cheap, mass produced fighters with very little sophistication designed primarily for wars of the past (ie dogfighting). They were the ones who claimed the F-111 was inferior to the A-10 in desert storm (despite the vark having more confirmed kills) as well as things like the M1 Abrams being inferior to older designs like the M60. They are also very famous for speaking down upon stealth/5th Gen fighter tech as you could imagine since they don't really get the concept of beyond visual range air to air combat or strike fighters.

[@Leescreativeart]

My brother works at Fort Hill Air Force Base in Utah and he paints the non-stealth planes but on your point of prepping a plane with stealth materials, the gallon cost is near $3600. And I don’t remember exactly but it’s like 1000 gallons or something too, do the different layers of paint. 1000 is an exaggeration of course but it’s a lot and then multiply each gallon by $3600 that gets expensive real quick.

[@Leescreativeart]

Ok asked my brother again. I was off he all on is $1800, and they need 55-60 gallons for the low observable. Haha I was way off. But still expensive stuff.

[@mraviatorboii2510]

The only way I can see it happening, is if the Blues and thunderbirds Use the F-35s for the Solo Pilots ONLY. Like 4x F-16s and 2x F-35As and vice versa with Blues..

[@xodiaq]

One of the demo teams will probably eventually get older F-35s that no longer get RAM coatings, etc, but they likely won’t be as capable bc the F-35 itself is not as capable aerobatically. I’d imagine them getting a VTOL F-35b and use it as a solo showpiece like the F-22 you mentioned. The single F-22 doing demo makes 100% sense, it’s a solo show for sure. F-35 just isn’t as much of a wow aircraft. It’s kind of like bringing a very stealthy 1980s station wagon to an exotic car show. Some people have a soft spot for it, but it’s not really a showpiece.

[@fraizie6815]

Sadly, in 30 - 40 years we very likely won't need to worry about air shows anymore because kerosine becomes a costly commodity and the congress will deem air shows unecological and unprofitable.

[@dennish.7708]

In 30-40 years there will be no manned military craft.

[@maureencora1]

It's Like Honor Guards Using M-14s & M-1s Rifles Same Thing. Semper-Fi.

[@dezza718]

A brilliant video thank you.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@leester9487]

T7 and T45 trainers are actually pretty awesome.

[@Indarow]

I just want to say that in my 33 years on this planet, I have *never* been disappointed by a Canadian Snowbirds performance.

[@becraftcorey]

F22 is the coolest show I have ever seen, I agree though a team of them probably wouldn't be anything to see over the f16

[@cruisinguy6024]

I don’t know about the Thunderbirds but the aircraft historically used by the Blue Angels are some of the oldest airframes in the fleet. Now that they’ve transitioned so Super Hornets I’m sure they are also the oldest frames in the fleet. At the end of the day despite the multitude of reasons the big glaring one is it simply is not a good utilization of resources to take super secret and sensitive aircraft out of frontline service just to use and abuse them. I’m somewhat surprised the F-22 demonstration team is still operating as those are in such high demand these days but it’s a lot easier to dedicate one or 2 airframes for that compared to 12.

[@KevinS3928]

I really liked and miss the F-4 Phantoms, now that was an air show! 🫡

[@alabamacoastie6924]

Well done video, very professional. I hope they never go to trainers for these demos, for the reason you mentioned...the power!

[@genelegear5418]

Thank you, nicely done....RT

[@Bamamarama]

F-16, C-130, B-52. They will pretty much fly forever, probably get 100 yrs out of all of them, which is wild to think about. The B-52s especially, seen as they are actually the same planes not just the same model. To think think you could fly the same exact aircraft, in combat, as your great-great-great grandfather. Wild.

[@Jwalker21NC]

I think they will be flying 16s and 18s for far longer honestly. They’re perfect for what they need them for. Take the AF for example they fly blk.52s currently. The first date I found for the 50/52 is 1991 that’s 33 years ago! Granted theirs may not be that old but I say that to say they will prob be flying the ones flowing off the production lines today ie blk.70/72s which yes I know the US hasn’t bought any of those yet but they haven’t needed to either. The MLU for the 50/52 gave us AESA and a host of others things. The point is these jets fly 30+ years before the proverbial wings fall off with most going even longer when you’re talking about two Swiss Army knives like these and the lines are still running with no plan or reason to stop anytime soon. Heck ask Canada they still fly A model hornets. Albeit upgraded but the age remains. Great great video man I’m liking and sharing the crap outta this!