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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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. :)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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…

[@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.

[@bmezay2003]

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

[@aerospacehorizons]

Sure would! Thanks for watching!

[@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

[@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!

[@bradleyrex2968]

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

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks for watching!

[@frankleespeaking9519]

Next up will probably be the T7 Red hawk trainer

[@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!

[@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.

[@Phalanx11]

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

[@mrandrossguy9871]

😢

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

The irony of Richard McSpadden, Scott Crossfield, Glen DeVries, pilots who flew Thunderbirds, X-15 rocket planes, and rocket launches to the edge of space, all died in Cessnas.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Most car accidents happen within a mile or two of people’s homes for the same reasons probably. Thanks for watching!

[@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.

[@flashgordon3715]

I would have thought Tom Cruise would fly his own f-18

[@aerospacehorizons]

That’s certainly what he wants you to believe, but it’s not true. To his credit he flew his own P-51 in the movie and I have no doubt with enough training he COULD fly an F-18… but the Navy isn’t going to be held responsible for getting Tom Cruise killed on the taxpayers dime. 😂

[@maureencora1]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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)!

[@philoshaughnessy906]

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

[@aerospacehorizons]

😂

[@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.

[@JimOHalloran]

On the helmet cost issue... The Thunderbirds or the Blues aren't going to take a pilot who isn't already checked out on their aircraft and has a lot of hours flying it. So if they were ever to fly F-35s any pilots accepted onto the team would already have a helmet. But I think you're right, trainers are probably the way of the future. Fixes that "no back seat" issue too.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Not necessarily! I know the Blue Angels do not select pilots based on aircraft proficiency. For example, all USMC pilots now must learn to fly the Super Hornet if selected for the team, because the Corps doesn’t fly them. The team is much more concerned with things like demeanor, ability to be a team player, innate aviation skill, etc than they are about proficiency in one aircraft. In short - they select for “Blue Angel” qualities first, technical skills second. A pilot is a pilot. If they’ve made it as far as getting in an application to the Blues and being seriously considered, they can certainly fly a jet, no matter the type. It’s that other intangible soft skill stuff that makes someone successful on the team. All that said, the practical issue right now would be that the pool of F-35 pilots is relatively small compared to the vast pool of fourth gen pilots. It will be a long time before even a majority of pilots up for these slots have F-35 time (and therefore a helmet). And even longer until all or most of them have those things. If you were to limit your candidate search to just F-35 pilots with helmets you have a much smaller selection of talent to choose from. Thanks for watching!

[@JimOHalloran]

@@aerospacehorizons That's fair, the priority absolutely should be to get as many F-35s into the hands of the warfighters as possible, not as show birds. Down the track, I doubt it makes sense either for all the same reasons as the F-22. Also, it didn't sink in until after I'd left my previous comment, but can I just say how nice it is to watch a well put together, carefully considered, well argued aviation video! Instead of standard KZbin "quality", with some artificial voice "speaking" a script thrown together by someone who clearly an (at best) superficial understanding of the subject matter (if it's not just an AI bot), with a click baity title that the video never actually addresses. It's a refreshing change!

[@aerospacehorizons]

@@JimOHalloran Thank you! That comment means a lot. I HATE the soulless aviation videos you describe, and am working to make these videos feel like a real person made them. It’s very gratifying to hear that that’s coming through.

[@tony9146]

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

[@DJTourniquet]

Buff is forever

[@Jerry74]

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

[@sherrillshaffer579]

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

[@KindaGross]

Have you ever wondered why soccer isn’t played with a diamond plated extremely expensive and hard to maintain ball?

[@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.

[@AmericanSCPO]

F-22 abdominal F-35 are 6th gen aircraft. I took part in the first 5th gen to 6th gen multi service exercise in Wisconsin some years ago. F35S and F22s came, and NY squadron flew FA/18Gs a 5th gen aircraft. We also had FA/E/F air as well 5th gen. The Blue Angeles currently fly 5th Gen FA/18s.

[@BlueDasher13]

The biggest factor as to why they don't want to switch past the fourth generation is because the time needed to maintain the F35 would interfere with their schedules because they at most between shows get 2 weeks and the average time between shows for maintenance is 4 -7 days Maintaining 6 airshow ready F35s with spares in each location would take a toll on the maintenance crews of both teams and cause more accidents as a result

[@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.

[@byarchi7991]

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

[@Robin-n8k]

I’d like to see the a10 warthog in the Thunder birds or blue angels

[@aerospacehorizons]

It’s facing retirement, but that would certainly be a unique sight!

[@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.

[@leester9487]

T7 and T45 trainers are actually pretty awesome.

[@fortel7939]

As a French, something I am dreaming of would be the Patrouille de France using the Rafale instead of the Alphajet which is a trainer aircraft. I don't think it's gonna happen anyway sadly

[@Emlizardo]

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

[@KevinS3928]

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

[@zemlidrakona2915]

Some years back there was a leaked report on a dogfight competition between an F-35 and an F-16. Apparently the F-16 trounced the F-35 as it was significantly more maneuverable . This may not matter in a beyond visual range fight, but I would imagine you might want maneuverability at an airshow. I'm just spitballing however.

[@user-jpwiremans1575]

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

[@aerospacehorizons]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@chubbydiddy7522]

Why they don’t fly the 5th gen fighters one because we only have two and nobody is ever going to get their hands on a raptor and the 35’s are still too new

[@stevenschmidt]

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

[@Castragroup]

No

[@bodazaphfa]

Cost + risk assessment = no F-35s or F-22s on a demo-team. Fun fact, the F/A-18 that was used in Top Gun Maverick ( 165667 ) is currently with the Blues.

[@skenzyme81]

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

[@cp4512]

Maybe it just because they’re so much cheaper?

[@rider4440]

I will say the one thing is that I believe we are down to 200000 for the F-35's helmet, still very expensive but not as bad as 400000 (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

[@KrisTheLVN]

When you look at what these 5th gen jets actually do, kinematically, they aren't that different from 4th gen. Where they shine is on the battlefield and while I'd love to see a battlefield airshow, OSHA and the FAA would not.

[@Amvienttz]

4th Gen will remain the most fun era of fighter aircraft. At least to me.

[@SerielThriller]

I spoke to a navy pilot about this, he said they were just to complcated and advanced to have. Simpler the jet the better.

[@Collin9637]

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

[@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.

[@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 ?

[@joostvisser8537]

I wonder how the more advanced 5th gen fly by wire would affect things. From what I understand the pilot doesn't actually directly control the aircraft. Instead, moving the stick is more like requesting a turn rate or an amount of Gs in the direction of the turn, it's then the plane's software that actually figures out how much to move each control surface to execute this request most efficiently.

[@LRRPFco52]

4th Gen is Fly-By-Wire in the Viper & Hornet. 4.5 Gen often includes DFLCS with CLAWs like you describe, along with FADEC engines. 5th Gen is fly-by-light (Fiber-Optic) with integrated CLAWs with the FADEC and far more advanced diagnostics and prognostics for critical flight systems monitoring and maintenance. But the early Control Laws were already as you describe in the Viper when it was analog FBW FLCS. Viper got DFLCS in the late Blocks. Super Hornet has always been DFLCS. 5th Gen CLAWs are designed and tested to be flown with reckless abandon throughout the regime, and will not depart controlled flight, with very rare exceptions in certain weather conditions in the pattern.

[@briancrawford69]

F16 is perfect for the Thunderbirds. Super fast, nimble, and maneuverable. Just what's needed for what they do

[@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

[@cap_eath]

Switching to trainers would most certainly be a downgrade. You don't need to defend it.

[@kenkoller478]

I just looooove all the conjecture here. A few things. A: They will not transition to the T-7 for decades if at all. It's a new airframe that they can't afford to spare whatsoever. They're not taking 8 or 9 off the line when they need every single one. Same for the T-45. The only way they Blues would transition to the T-45 would be with trapped out airframes but those would likely be cannibalized for parts to keep the rest of the training fleet flying. As for the F-35, the Thunderbirds were closer than you might think. The plan was to get the FSD and LRIP airframes as they timed out, but the 65th Aggressor Squadron took those planes.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Do you have sources on all this? Would love to hear more.

[@kenkoller478]

@@aerospacehorizons ill have to dig it back up. I believe it was LockMart themselves that talked about 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.

[@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

[@calebs_rollercoasters3222]

F16s are an elegant weapon from a more civilized age

[@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!

[@AlphaWhiskey_Haryo]

I'm kinda surprised that you'd bring up the T-7, but we can't say no to the possibility of it could be used as the future fleet of T/Bs

[@kevrasx]

I remember seeing the Blue Angels as a kid. It must have been the A-4. Some chance it was the F-4 based on your timeline. The warm up of one jet was done on the ground where the crowd could hear it. Viscerally loud. That noise definitely is a part of the show. Side quest: why aren't we engineering drones based loosely on older jet platforms? It seems like a pilotless F-5 could be a serious force multiplier. Thoughts?

[@aerospacehorizons]

I believe that is expressly the plan for sixth gen. To have a master jet with a pilot, with semi-autonomous companion drones that can be controlled by the pilot.

[@stcredzero]

I use a scalpel to open my amazon boxes! The holders are just 410, and I don't have to dull my knives needlessly!

[@ValidAsian]

There’s somewhat an asterisk to this. There may not be a team flying them but they’re regularly displayed at airshows and sometimes flown. The last couple of times I’ve been to an airshow, anF22 was flown and another time, a F35 was displayed

[@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"

[@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!

[@FullContactDrummer]

Thunderbirds have been in the F16 since 1982? Wow....I remember seeing them once in a T38 when I was a kid.

[@etherealswordsman3214]

I would like to see the Thunderbirds in the new F-15 EX, I hear that thing is insane. or even just regular F15s, those need a lot of skill without the fly-by-wire systems, though that might make flying in formation much more dangerous, not sure.

[@Luckydog1159]

Hi, love the insightfulness and I would agree with most of the information present, mostly. I worked on 35s and 22s from 2014-2020, though the Thunderbirds will never have a squadron of 35s to do demonstrations, that doesn't mean they dont. There is a dedicated, 35 Demo Team for the USAF which have 3 ships in their inventory last I checked, and though I'm not 100% sure where they are stationed at the time of writing this, last I remember was Pensecola the same as the Blue Angels, I have met their pilots in the past from other air shows. When it comes to the Navy side of their demo teams, I'm not sure as I didn't interact with them often. However, If I had to guess, odds are the navy would also use 35A models for their demo team, and instead of the helmet system they use, they will probaly just use the MFD they have already. It would work perfectly fine for bringing up instruments to fly without a helmet system no problem. As for software, you've hit the nail on the head! The JSF software teams would never bother to make custom suites for a demo team. They have too much work already working on the frontline models. And I doubt that those teams would sign off on a 3rd party software dev to make changes to it regardless. Despite that, I doubt there would need to be much changes to the software anyways to make it suitable for aerobics (and that is all I will say regarding that because I'd like to not be behind bars ;) ).

[@aerospacehorizons]

Check out the pinned comment. Apparently I got it slightly wrong about the Blues software. They mostly use it for show center and timing - not overriding flight controls. You really think the Blues would fly an A model even though it’s not navalized? I find that hard to believe. And oh boy would I love to pick your brain further but I also don’t want you to end up behind bars… :) Thanks for watching!

[@Luckydog1159]

@@aerospacehorizons Thank you for the response! I have no issue on the the Blue Angel's software thing. I'm not surprised they would and common sense dictates they would to prevent things like altitude and proximity warnings from constantly going off in their helmets. Like you know, nothing is ever changed to alter control surface and stabilizer changes. Other than that, I really do think they would choose an A model for demonstrations. If anything than for the turning and manuverability. The C model is heavier to compensate for a larger fuel tank and beefier landing gear. Seeing as almost all of their demonstrations are land based, there would be no reason (except for one, yes I saw your video of the blue angel that had to land on a carrier! ;) ) for them to land on a carrier BUT that is my opinion and time will certainly tell if I'm proven wrong or right. Even so a lot of people don't believe that the 35 AND the 22 have internal tailhooks but they actually do! They are designed to incase of emergency landing off shore clandestine countries. It isn't exactly a smooth landing but it can, and is, used. Also privately (alledgedly) I can talk about the thing I have worked on from a hardware side! Its jsut software is a touchy subject xD

[@tinman3586]

The answer to this is easy. The F35s/22s are expensive, new, and fairly rare still. Probably would not be a good use of tax dollars to divert any away from active combat wings to a flight demonstration team.

[@OrionsMako]

They could build 12, F35C , if the desire was there, for the Blue Angles, it would be so cool.

[@Fudgieguys1969]

You mentioned that the most expensive element is the helmet for the F35s and their variants. The Navy’s trainer is the T45.

[@LRRPFco52]

Pilots don't get their own Helmets made just for them either. They get their own pad inserts made for their helmet size, then use that helmet.

[@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!

[@mscottreynolds]

I was at the Hill Air Force Base show in 1982 when a single Thunderbird T-38 crashed off in the distance (I believe it was found to be pilot-error). The crash wasn't very close to where the spectators were so most of us were clueless about what actually happened. The rest of T-38s few a missing man formation over the field and then landed. The announcer went quiet and didn't say anything after the crash. Of course, once we made our way off of the base and started listening to the news we got the details on what happened. That was a sad day. The Thunderbirds switched to the F-16 after that.

[@dukeofgibbon4043]

Now I want to see an F-35 airshow demonstration with a formation of drone wingmen.

[@DrDeuteron]

The thought of writing the F35 software is terrifying, (I was a software engineer once, and not a good one…I think at the same company that makes the f35….not sure tho).

[@aerospacehorizons]

Right??

[@DrDeuteron]

@@aerospacehorizons we're a sub contractor on further review.

[@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.

[@neetones]

Beautiful Maloof rocker back there.

[@aerospacehorizons]

Thanks! It was made by my cousin in law. So not technically genuine, but more impressive in my mind.

[@alabamacoastie6924]

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

[@lordneeko]

When you look at the current NDS for preparation for Great Power Competition, the F-22 assembly line needs to be brought back. We already have the design, and it would be super expensive to bring back the assembly line, but absolutely is the best aircraft we've ever built. F-35 has great capabilities, but only the 22 can replace aircraft like the f-15's capability.